6 ms·

I find it interesting that we commonly regard "Intellectual Property" as non oxymoronic. I find the concept of Intellectual Property an impossible situation as:

I find it interesting that we commonly regard "Intellectual Property" as non oxymoronic. I find the concept of Intellectual Property an impossible situation as: It's not possible to *own* a concept. You own a *monopoly* on the sale of the *application* of a concept. A better name might be Intellectual Monopoly Rights. I realize that I'm arguing semantics, but I think a further look at the semantics help reveal the true nature of the system and enlighten the discussion. Intellectual Monopoly Rights are only granted by societies for the benefit of their citizens. Does our current set of Intellectual Monopoly Rights benefit us? Can we make them better?

dnautics 13y ago
But property property is also a monopoly right, enforced by the state, so your semantic redefinition really gets us nowhere. It's worth considering what things should be propertized... One solution is that things subject to the tragedy of the commons should be properties, especially when to deny one person the use of a good entails violence against their person. These goods are rivalrous - if I take your bike by pushing you off of it, I deny you the use of said bike. Note that this doesn't apply to intellectual property without appealing to entitlement language ("An artist is entitled to compensation " - who decided what is art and how much to give for it)
- shittyanalogy 13y ago
  That property can be taken from me. You can't physically take my ideas or concepts from me. They cannot be property.
  - briantakita 13y ago
    The only thing that can be taken away is the government-granted monopoly on applying the "IP".
    - shittyanalogy 13y ago
      Agreed.
      - shittyanalogy 13y ago
        Who downvoted me responding to a comment in my own thread?
        shittyanalogy 13y ago
        ?
        shittyanalogy 13y ago
        No one want's to leave a comment as they downvote?
  - dnautics 13y ago
    Some things like "equity ownership of a company" are also not physical things, and thus can't be "physically taken" from you yet we treat them as property. It's not the physicalness that is a prerequistie to propertization, it's the rivalrousness.
    - shittyanalogy 13y ago
      You could have equity ownership in my bicycle just as you could have equity ownership in a company. A company is still a physical thing and equity ownership is just different form of partial possession of physical property.
- baddox 13y ago
  The key difference is, as you say, the fact that physical property is rivalrous. The "government-granted" point is bogus. Protection of both physical property and intellectual property are currently provided by governments, but both could conceivably be provided by societies without government.

dnautics 13y ago

But property property is also a monopoly right, enforced by the state, so your semantic redefinition really gets us nowhere. It's worth considering what things should be propertized... One solution is that things subject to the tragedy of the commons should be properties, especially when to deny one person the use of a good entails violence against their person. These goods are rivalrous - if I take your bike by pushing you off of it, I deny you the use of said bike. Note that this doesn't apply to intellectual property without appealing to entitlement language ("An artist is entitled to compensation " - who decided what is art and how much to give for it)

shittyanalogy 13y ago
That property can be taken from me. You can't physically take my ideas or concepts from me. They cannot be property.
- briantakita 13y ago
  The only thing that can be taken away is the government-granted monopoly on applying the "IP".
  - shittyanalogy 13y ago
    Agreed.
    - shittyanalogy 13y ago
      Who downvoted me responding to a comment in my own thread?
      - shittyanalogy 13y ago
        ?
        shittyanalogy 13y ago
        No one want's to leave a comment as they downvote?
- dnautics 13y ago
  Some things like "equity ownership of a company" are also not physical things, and thus can't be "physically taken" from you yet we treat them as property. It's not the physicalness that is a prerequistie to propertization, it's the rivalrousness.
  - shittyanalogy 13y ago
    You could have equity ownership in my bicycle just as you could have equity ownership in a company. A company is still a physical thing and equity ownership is just different form of partial possession of physical property.
baddox 13y ago
The key difference is, as you say, the fact that physical property is rivalrous. The "government-granted" point is bogus. Protection of both physical property and intellectual property are currently provided by governments, but both could conceivably be provided by societies without government.