3 ms·

I fail to see why we should treat tangibile and intangible entities equally. In your opinion, how do you deduce what type of intangible property should qualify

by smokeyj 13y ago

I fail to see why we should treat tangibile and intangible entities equally. In your opinion, how do you deduce what type of intangible property should qualify as intillectual property? Should chefs own his recipe? Should fragrance designers own their smell? Should phillosophers own their phillosophy?

rayiner 13y ago
Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean treating them "equally." "Property" is the legal system's equivalent of Java's "Object" class. All "Objects" share certain common characteristics, but beyond that they are all different. Calling something "property" just applies a certain set of default rules to the thing. As for "tangible" versus "intangible"--the set of things we call "intellectual property" are not coextensive with the set of intangible things which are called "property." Consider something like a "light and air" right, which is a property right but does not involve ownership of a physical thing. Or consider intangible rights like a vested legal claim, or assignable rights under a contract. We treat all these things under a common framework for the same reason UNIX treats everything as a "file"--it makes everything easier to deal with.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean treating them "equally." Sure it does. We're treating conceptual entities as physical objects that can be "stolen" (you wouldn't download a car would you?). We treat infinately reproducible entities as scarce resources that can be "pirated". The idea of IP is based on conflating the notions of copying and stealing, which I feel is a set-back for furthering the discussion. I understand IP is a legal invention not observable outside of a legal context, but the issue I see is using the notion of property to justify intillectual property.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Calling something "property" does not mean treating it like a "physical object" because the concept of property is not limited to physical objects. There are lots of things, besides intellectual property, which are "property" despite being intangible. For example, certain assignable contractual rights are property, but are intangible, infinitely reproducible, etc.
    - smokeyj 13y ago
      > the concept of property is not limited to physical objects Why not? The word property implies possession. So I ask, what should be considered property? > certain assignable contractual rights are property, but are intangible, infinitely reproducible I wouldn't argue that contractual rights should be considered property -- but I find it somewhat irrelevant considering it has no bearing on anyone outside of said agreement. Two people making a voluntary agreement is not the same as a chef demanding nation-wide royalties for copying his dish.
      - bediger4000 13y ago
        Beyond demanding royalties - demanding that the state enforce his monopoly. This entitlement to someone else enforcing the monopoly is a really pernicious part of the whole "intellectual property" scheme.
dnautics 13y ago
stallman's tangible/intangible idea, while a nice first order attempt, might not be the correct lens with which to look at things. I like Nina Paley's "rivalrous/anti-rivalrous" analysis better. http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/09/culture-is-anti-rivalrous/ http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/09/culture-is-anti-rivalro...

by smokeyj 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean treating them "equally." "Property" is the legal system's equivalent of Java's "Object" class. All "Objects" share certain common characteristics, but beyond that they are all different. Calling something "property" just applies a certain set of default rules to the thing. As for "tangible" versus "intangible"--the set of things we call "intellectual property" are not coextensive with the set of intangible things which are called "property." Consider something like a "light and air" right, which is a property right but does not involve ownership of a physical thing. Or consider intangible rights like a vested legal claim, or assignable rights under a contract. We treat all these things under a common framework for the same reason UNIX treats everything as a "file"--it makes everything easier to deal with.

smokeyj 13y ago
> Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean treating them "equally." Sure it does. We're treating conceptual entities as physical objects that can be "stolen" (you wouldn't download a car would you?). We treat infinately reproducible entities as scarce resources that can be "pirated". The idea of IP is based on conflating the notions of copying and stealing, which I feel is a set-back for furthering the discussion. I understand IP is a legal invention not observable outside of a legal context, but the issue I see is using the notion of property to justify intillectual property.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Calling something "property" does not mean treating it like a "physical object" because the concept of property is not limited to physical objects. There are lots of things, besides intellectual property, which are "property" despite being intangible. For example, certain assignable contractual rights are property, but are intangible, infinitely reproducible, etc.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    > the concept of property is not limited to physical objects Why not? The word property implies possession. So I ask, what should be considered property? > certain assignable contractual rights are property, but are intangible, infinitely reproducible I wouldn't argue that contractual rights should be considered property -- but I find it somewhat irrelevant considering it has no bearing on anyone outside of said agreement. Two people making a voluntary agreement is not the same as a chef demanding nation-wide royalties for copying his dish.
    - bediger4000 13y ago
      Beyond demanding royalties - demanding that the state enforce his monopoly. This entitlement to someone else enforcing the monopoly is a really pernicious part of the whole "intellectual property" scheme.

dnautics 13y ago

stallman's tangible/intangible idea, while a nice first order attempt, might not be the correct lens with which to look at things. I like Nina Paley's "rivalrous/anti-rivalrous" analysis better. http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/09/culture-is-anti-rivalrous/ http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/09/culture-is-anti-rivalro...