4 ms·
> Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean treating them "equally." Sure it does. We're treating conceptual entities as physi
by 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 agoCalling 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 agoBeyond 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.