6 ms·

All "property" is imaginary. Having physical things without the backing of the law is just possession. We create a legal notion of property for the benefit of s

All "property" is imaginary. Having physical things without the backing of the law is just possession. We create a legal notion of property for the benefit of society. Property law adds the force to the state to my possessions, to stop someone beating me on the head and taking them. Intellectual property law adds the force of the state to concepts/ideas/media/etc that originated by the sweat of my brow, to encourage the creation of more, and to enable me to make a living from it. We can argue to what extent this force is necessary, but to claim that intellectual endeavours are just "imaginary" is to do a huge disservice to millions of people who pour their lives into the creation of new and exciting things.

Natsu 12y ago
It points out that imaginary property is wholly unlike physical property. One is naturally exclusive, as multiple people cannot all use the same property at the same time. The other is not, as information is more valuable when shared. Importing concepts of physical property is sloppy thinking and detrimental to society because it advocates for an unreasonable and unworkable basis. It's interesting in that vein that you have a "sweat of the brow" concept of copyright interest, when this theory has been directly rejected under US law (Feist v. Rural). The term imaginary property recognizes such contributions to society as the product of the imagination and is more productive as a starting place for discussion thereof, even if it also lumps the disparate legal concepts together to some degree, though this may be unavoidable at this point.
- tzs 12y ago
  > The other is not, as information is more valuable when shared. If this were true, there would be no need for insider trading laws, we'd play poker with all the cards face up, and targets of blackmail would just laugh it off.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    You're pointing out the asymmetry of the value, rather than disputing it. The information the insiders are trading on is relevant to the stock price (i.e. valuable to stockholders), the poker card info is valuable to the other players (or cheats wouldn't be after it), and the target of the blackmail has something important to hide or they wouldn't pay up.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    Could you explain? I don't see how your examples contradict what Natsu is saying?!
    - tzs 12y ago
      My point was that in many cases information is valuable because not many people have it.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        You're only looking at half of the value, though. It's because it has value to others that it's worth keeping the secret. I'm asserting that the normal case is for the value to others to outweigh the individual's value. You are correct that it's asymmetric, of course. And yes, zero sum games would tend to be something of a limiting case. I'm not sure you can find a negative sum game for society as a whole, though you can for some particular group.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
        I still don't see how that is the case with your examples. Insider trading laws, for example, exist exactly because only a few people having the info reduces its value, there would be no point in having them if that wasn't the case. Obviously, the value to the few having the information is increased because they can use the information to their advantage - but the overall value of something has to consider externalities as well, which in this case would mean considering at least the losses that unsuspecting trading partners incur, which already would make it a zero-sum game, so there at least is no positive value in keeping the information secret. Now, another externality of keeping insider information secret is that it leads to the market making less rational decisions about asset allocation, for example allocating capital to a company that is actually less efficient at doing its job in society than its competitor that publishes such information immediately and honestly, thus likely wasting resources in comparison to the allocation that would happen in an honest market. I mean, after all, we put quite a lot of effort into making sure that price discovery in the stock market is not being manipulated, and into creating public exchanges with public price information in the first place, so presumably there is some value to society in making this information widely available?
- archgrove 12y ago
  "The term imaginary property recognizes such contributions to society as the product of the imagination and is more productive as a starting place for discussion thereof" No, it's derogatory. Very few phrases of the form "Oh, it's just your imaginary X" are designed to be complimentary. In common parlance, "imaginary" is just synonymous with "not real". The phrase "imaginary property" is designed purely to advance an agenda where people write books, create films, make software, etc all for some "manna" which, when pushed, advocates can't actually specify beyond saying "they'll find new business models". Yes, they will. Involving not writing books, films, etc.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    Do you consider "imaginary numbers" somehow derogatory as well? Because that was the inspiration for the term. The term merely calls attention to the point of dispute.
npsimons 12y ago
Intellectual property law adds the force of the state to concepts/ideas/media/etc that originated by the sweat of my brow, to encourage the creation of more, and to enable me to make a living from it. Except that little pesky thing called the constitution doesn't call it intellectual property (rightly so), and the purpose is not to enable making a living from ideas (which doesn't follow; just because someone has a copyright or patent, doesn't mean they'll make a living from those ideas, and not having a copyright or patent doesn't preclude them from making a living off their ideas). The wording is pretty explicit: "to advance science and the useful arts."
jdreaver 12y ago
EDIT: I'm sorry three of us replied at the same time. I didn't mean to gang up on you. > All "property" is imaginary. When it comes to the current legal notion of property, then yes, assigning something as someone's "property" is imaginary. The problem is "real" property cannot be duplicated without expending resources, whereas IP can be duplicated for free. For example: If I make a car, you can't just "copy" it. Taking the car is stealing, and I think that is immoral because you have deprived the original owner of their work. If I make a short story, then "copying" the story means using your own pen and paper (or your own hard drive to place a sequence of bits) to copy. I don't think this should be illegal. That is, I don't think that having a particular sequence of bits on your hard drive should legally allow men with guns to enter your home, label you a criminal, fine you, and/or send you to jail. In that sense, not all property is "imaginary." We can make a distinction between tangible property, that exists as mass, and intellectual property, which is a set of ideas/words/code/etc. Tangible property is rivalrous; we can't both use it at the same time. Intellectual property can be used by many individuals at once, so calling it someone's "property" and enforcing that claim with force creates artificial scarcity. I do feel bad that people who expect and rely on IP laws could feel cheated if IP laws were to disappear tomorrow. But to pretend IP law is some sort of natural thing is a bit naive. People have been creating ideas since we evolved a brain. People will continue to create without IP law. To make money off of your creations just requires a different business model.
- archgrove 12y ago
  There are no natural laws. Just because you (or your forefathers) were first on a piece of land, what natural right grants you it? Surely it's far more natural that, if I can overpower you and take it, it's mine? That's actually how nature typically works. The notion that it's "immoral" is a purely human construction. Why is that immoral, but my spending 5 years writing a book, only to see nothing in return because everyone hands it around for free is moral? I'm not saying people will stop having ideas, or creating music, etc. What I am saying is that people without private means or patrons will have to stop performing creative acts that require a significant time investment. If I've got a wonderful idea for a book/film/game/whatever, but know it will take 5 years to make, how do I make it when I need to work 8-6 to pay for food/shelter etc? Eliminating IP is to construct a return to patronage; the very wealthy deciding what creative output it worthwhile. IP is actually a hugely egalitarian concept; the world can decide what has value, and reward the creator post-hoc, because the creator is ensured a return.
icebraining 12y ago
Intellectual property law adds the force of the state to concepts/ideas/media/etc that originated by the sweat of my brow Actually, in many countries, including the US, "seat of the brow" is explicitly excluded as a doctrine w.r.t. copyright and patents. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., where the SCOTUS specifically refers the clarification given by Congress that the fundamental criteria for protection are originality and fixation in tangible form, and sweat of the brow is excluded. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...
chc 12y ago
> All "property" is imaginary. I don't think this is right. The ownership may be imaginary, but most of my property is real and tangible. If my computer here were imaginary, you would never see this. So if you do read this, rest assured that at least some of my property is real. This is different from intellectual property. In that arena, not only the ownership, but the property itself is purely a construct of the mind.

Natsu 12y ago

It points out that imaginary property is wholly unlike physical property. One is naturally exclusive, as multiple people cannot all use the same property at the same time. The other is not, as information is more valuable when shared. Importing concepts of physical property is sloppy thinking and detrimental to society because it advocates for an unreasonable and unworkable basis. It's interesting in that vein that you have a "sweat of the brow" concept of copyright interest, when this theory has been directly rejected under US law (Feist v. Rural). The term imaginary property recognizes such contributions to society as the product of the imagination and is more productive as a starting place for discussion thereof, even if it also lumps the disparate legal concepts together to some degree, though this may be unavoidable at this point.

tzs 12y ago
> The other is not, as information is more valuable when shared. If this were true, there would be no need for insider trading laws, we'd play poker with all the cards face up, and targets of blackmail would just laugh it off.
- Natsu 12y ago
  You're pointing out the asymmetry of the value, rather than disputing it. The information the insiders are trading on is relevant to the stock price (i.e. valuable to stockholders), the poker card info is valuable to the other players (or cheats wouldn't be after it), and the target of the blackmail has something important to hide or they wouldn't pay up.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  Could you explain? I don't see how your examples contradict what Natsu is saying?!
  - tzs 12y ago
    My point was that in many cases information is valuable because not many people have it.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      You're only looking at half of the value, though. It's because it has value to others that it's worth keeping the secret. I'm asserting that the normal case is for the value to others to outweigh the individual's value. You are correct that it's asymmetric, of course. And yes, zero sum games would tend to be something of a limiting case. I'm not sure you can find a negative sum game for society as a whole, though you can for some particular group.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
      I still don't see how that is the case with your examples. Insider trading laws, for example, exist exactly because only a few people having the info reduces its value, there would be no point in having them if that wasn't the case. Obviously, the value to the few having the information is increased because they can use the information to their advantage - but the overall value of something has to consider externalities as well, which in this case would mean considering at least the losses that unsuspecting trading partners incur, which already would make it a zero-sum game, so there at least is no positive value in keeping the information secret. Now, another externality of keeping insider information secret is that it leads to the market making less rational decisions about asset allocation, for example allocating capital to a company that is actually less efficient at doing its job in society than its competitor that publishes such information immediately and honestly, thus likely wasting resources in comparison to the allocation that would happen in an honest market. I mean, after all, we put quite a lot of effort into making sure that price discovery in the stock market is not being manipulated, and into creating public exchanges with public price information in the first place, so presumably there is some value to society in making this information widely available?
archgrove 12y ago
"The term imaginary property recognizes such contributions to society as the product of the imagination and is more productive as a starting place for discussion thereof" No, it's derogatory. Very few phrases of the form "Oh, it's just your imaginary X" are designed to be complimentary. In common parlance, "imaginary" is just synonymous with "not real". The phrase "imaginary property" is designed purely to advance an agenda where people write books, create films, make software, etc all for some "manna" which, when pushed, advocates can't actually specify beyond saying "they'll find new business models". Yes, they will. Involving not writing books, films, etc.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Do you consider "imaginary numbers" somehow derogatory as well? Because that was the inspiration for the term. The term merely calls attention to the point of dispute.

npsimons 12y ago

Intellectual property law adds the force of the state to concepts/ideas/media/etc that originated by the sweat of my brow, to encourage the creation of more, and to enable me to make a living from it. Except that little pesky thing called the constitution doesn't call it intellectual property (rightly so), and the purpose is not to enable making a living from ideas (which doesn't follow; just because someone has a copyright or patent, doesn't mean they'll make a living from those ideas, and not having a copyright or patent doesn't preclude them from making a living off their ideas). The wording is pretty explicit: "to advance science and the useful arts."

jdreaver 12y ago

EDIT: I'm sorry three of us replied at the same time. I didn't mean to gang up on you. > All "property" is imaginary. When it comes to the current legal notion of property, then yes, assigning something as someone's "property" is imaginary. The problem is "real" property cannot be duplicated without expending resources, whereas IP can be duplicated for free. For example: If I make a car, you can't just "copy" it. Taking the car is stealing, and I think that is immoral because you have deprived the original owner of their work. If I make a short story, then "copying" the story means using your own pen and paper (or your own hard drive to place a sequence of bits) to copy. I don't think this should be illegal. That is, I don't think that having a particular sequence of bits on your hard drive should legally allow men with guns to enter your home, label you a criminal, fine you, and/or send you to jail. In that sense, not all property is "imaginary." We can make a distinction between tangible property, that exists as mass, and intellectual property, which is a set of ideas/words/code/etc. Tangible property is rivalrous; we can't both use it at the same time. Intellectual property can be used by many individuals at once, so calling it someone's "property" and enforcing that claim with force creates artificial scarcity. I do feel bad that people who expect and rely on IP laws could feel cheated if IP laws were to disappear tomorrow. But to pretend IP law is some sort of natural thing is a bit naive. People have been creating ideas since we evolved a brain. People will continue to create without IP law. To make money off of your creations just requires a different business model.

archgrove 12y ago
There are no natural laws. Just because you (or your forefathers) were first on a piece of land, what natural right grants you it? Surely it's far more natural that, if I can overpower you and take it, it's mine? That's actually how nature typically works. The notion that it's "immoral" is a purely human construction. Why is that immoral, but my spending 5 years writing a book, only to see nothing in return because everyone hands it around for free is moral? I'm not saying people will stop having ideas, or creating music, etc. What I am saying is that people without private means or patrons will have to stop performing creative acts that require a significant time investment. If I've got a wonderful idea for a book/film/game/whatever, but know it will take 5 years to make, how do I make it when I need to work 8-6 to pay for food/shelter etc? Eliminating IP is to construct a return to patronage; the very wealthy deciding what creative output it worthwhile. IP is actually a hugely egalitarian concept; the world can decide what has value, and reward the creator post-hoc, because the creator is ensured a return.

icebraining 12y ago

Intellectual property law adds the force of the state to concepts/ideas/media/etc that originated by the sweat of my brow Actually, in many countries, including the US, "seat of the brow" is explicitly excluded as a doctrine w.r.t. copyright and patents. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., where the SCOTUS specifically refers the clarification given by Congress that the fundamental criteria for protection are originality and fixation in tangible form, and sweat of the brow is excluded. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...

chc 12y ago

> All "property" is imaginary. I don't think this is right. The ownership may be imaginary, but most of my property is real and tangible. If my computer here were imaginary, you would never see this. So if you do read this, rest assured that at least some of my property is real. This is different from intellectual property. In that arena, not only the ownership, but the property itself is purely a construct of the mind.