7 ms·

I agree with many of your points, but my original point still stands. Supporters of capitalism typically private property as innately good. Copyright isn’t a pe

I agree with many of your points, but my original point still stands. Supporters of capitalism typically private property as innately good. Copyright isn’t a perversion of capitalism, nor is it a regulation that bends the shape of some pure form of capitalism, it is capitalism. What’s notable about intellectual property is the fact that it is a relatively recent concept in the history of property, so we can trace its original justifications. It is however, not all that different from other forms of property.

pdonis 4y ago
> It is however, not all that different from other forms of property. As I said, this is precisely the point that is disputed in discussions of copyright law. You certainly can't just assume it as a fact. But the capitalists who are exploiting copyright law to their own benefit would certainly love it if everyone would just take it as given that "intellectual property" is private property. That's an example of the general pattern I have described elsewhere in this discussion, that capitalists want people to think regulations are for the people's benefit, instead of for the benefit of the capitalists. That is the capitalists' ideal state of regulatory capture.
- comte7092 4y ago
  I don’t see how you can’t consider this to be the case for all forms of property. Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. There are numerous aspects of physical property ownership that we just take for granted that are not at all straightforward. You seem to be using a “is it for the benefit of society” test to determine whether something is an intrinsic feature of capitalism. I’d posit that is not how the system is structured nor is it how it is intended to be structured. That’s not regulatory capture, that is inherent to what it is. You can’t just take out the parts you don’t like and treat them as a separate entity.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > all forms of property The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. You cannot assume that. > Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. Enclosure of parts of the commons that are rivalrous--only one person can use that part at a time--was, yes. But as I have already said, "intellectual property" is non-rivalrous, so this argument does not apply to it. > There are numerous aspects of physical property ownership that we just take for granted that are not at all straightforward This is quite true; it's why we have a complex system of private property common law for physical property, and some kinds (such as real estate) have even more complexity in the law attached to them. But "intellectual property" is not physical property, and you can't just assume that all of the law that has been developed for physical property is automatically applicable to "intellectual property" as well. > You seem to be using a “is it for the benefit of society” test to determine whether something is an intrinsic feature of capitalism. I am doing no such thing. Indeed, the feature of capitalism I have been describing, namely regulatory capture, is not for the benefit of society; it is a net loss to society. But it is a benefit to the capitalists who buy the regulations they want. That's why they buy them. > That’s not regulatory capture, that is inherent to what it is. In the sense that regulatory capture is a common end state of capitalism (where "capitalism", as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, is not the same thing as "free markets", although capitalists would love for people to think it is), yes, it is "inherent" to capitalism. That still doesn't mean it's a net benefit to society. It isn't.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. Intellectual property is property. Whether or not it should be is a different question, but it factually is property.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        You can assert that as fact, but I don't think it's actually established as fact.
      - vkou 4y ago
        > Intellectual property is property. Why? Is there some natural law that gives me ownership to the meaning of the words I say? That bars you from repeating that meaning in those words?

pdonis 4y ago

> It is however, not all that different from other forms of property. As I said, this is precisely the point that is disputed in discussions of copyright law. You certainly can't just assume it as a fact. But the capitalists who are exploiting copyright law to their own benefit would certainly love it if everyone would just take it as given that "intellectual property" is private property. That's an example of the general pattern I have described elsewhere in this discussion, that capitalists want people to think regulations are for the people's benefit, instead of for the benefit of the capitalists. That is the capitalists' ideal state of regulatory capture.

comte7092 4y ago
I don’t see how you can’t consider this to be the case for all forms of property. Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. There are numerous aspects of physical property ownership that we just take for granted that are not at all straightforward. You seem to be using a “is it for the benefit of society” test to determine whether something is an intrinsic feature of capitalism. I’d posit that is not how the system is structured nor is it how it is intended to be structured. That’s not regulatory capture, that is inherent to what it is. You can’t just take out the parts you don’t like and treat them as a separate entity.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > all forms of property The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. You cannot assume that. > Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. Enclosure of parts of the commons that are rivalrous--only one person can use that part at a time--was, yes. But as I have already said, "intellectual property" is non-rivalrous, so this argument does not apply to it. > There are numerous aspects of physical property ownership that we just take for granted that are not at all straightforward This is quite true; it's why we have a complex system of private property common law for physical property, and some kinds (such as real estate) have even more complexity in the law attached to them. But "intellectual property" is not physical property, and you can't just assume that all of the law that has been developed for physical property is automatically applicable to "intellectual property" as well. > You seem to be using a “is it for the benefit of society” test to determine whether something is an intrinsic feature of capitalism. I am doing no such thing. Indeed, the feature of capitalism I have been describing, namely regulatory capture, is not for the benefit of society; it is a net loss to society. But it is a benefit to the capitalists who buy the regulations they want. That's why they buy them. > That’s not regulatory capture, that is inherent to what it is. In the sense that regulatory capture is a common end state of capitalism (where "capitalism", as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, is not the same thing as "free markets", although capitalists would love for people to think it is), yes, it is "inherent" to capitalism. That still doesn't mean it's a net benefit to society. It isn't.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. Intellectual property is property. Whether or not it should be is a different question, but it factually is property.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      You can assert that as fact, but I don't think it's actually established as fact.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > Intellectual property is property. Why? Is there some natural law that gives me ownership to the meaning of the words I say? That bars you from repeating that meaning in those words?