4 ms·

We can own property, we can possess it, we can alienate (sell or transfer) it, we can bequeath it, we can improve or modify it, and on and on. Why should this

by mmt 17y ago

We can own property, we can possess it, we can alienate (sell or transfer) it, we can bequeath it, we can improve or modify it, and on and on. Why should this bundle of rights be any different for intangible property rights (so-called intellectual property)? Because "intangible" property doesn't exist, except as a legal fiction. We can't possess it. Alternately, if you consider knowledge to be possession, then possessing isn't exclusive.

grellas 17y ago
Not to get disputatious, but the tangible/intangible distinction simply relates to whether one can physically touch something and (at least in my mind) has nothing to do with whether something should or should not be a protectible form of property or whether it does or doesn't have value making it worthy of protection. Society, through its laws, must make judgments about what "bundle of rights" it wants to associate with any given form of property and whether recognizing and protecting such bundles of rights will promote individual happiness and social betterment, including economic prosperity. I think the experience we have all seen with IP rights falls decidedly on the side of promoting social betterment as well as individual happiness. The point might be argued to the contrary, but I think the contrary argument is a far weaker case and, in reality, virtually unsustainable (though one can of course argue with more force about limiting individual IP components such as patents).
- mmt 17y ago
  has nothing to do with whether something should or should not be a protectible form of property or whether it does or doesn't have value making it worthy of protection This is where we disagree. I believe quite firmly that the fundamental nature of something, especially its existence outside of our minds, has very much to do with how we treat it as a society.
mmt 17y ago
jwz has a pretty concise essay on this topic: http://www.jwz.org/doc/iwtbf.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/iwtbf.html

by mmt 17y ago

grellas 17y ago

Not to get disputatious, but the tangible/intangible distinction simply relates to whether one can physically touch something and (at least in my mind) has nothing to do with whether something should or should not be a protectible form of property or whether it does or doesn't have value making it worthy of protection. Society, through its laws, must make judgments about what "bundle of rights" it wants to associate with any given form of property and whether recognizing and protecting such bundles of rights will promote individual happiness and social betterment, including economic prosperity. I think the experience we have all seen with IP rights falls decidedly on the side of promoting social betterment as well as individual happiness. The point might be argued to the contrary, but I think the contrary argument is a far weaker case and, in reality, virtually unsustainable (though one can of course argue with more force about limiting individual IP components such as patents).

mmt 17y ago
has nothing to do with whether something should or should not be a protectible form of property or whether it does or doesn't have value making it worthy of protection This is where we disagree. I believe quite firmly that the fundamental nature of something, especially its existence outside of our minds, has very much to do with how we treat it as a society.

mmt 17y ago

jwz has a pretty concise essay on this topic: http://www.jwz.org/doc/iwtbf.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/iwtbf.html