Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
from the good-points dept
For years, we've pointed out how rather insidious it is to refer to copyright and patents as "property," as it leads to those who support traditional property rights to default to supporting these government-granted monopoly privileges as if they were property. Stewart Baker, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, does a nice job suggesting that some folks' brains seem to shut off once they see something called "property," even when it has little that makes it "property." He's specifically addressing conservatives and libertarians, but on this debate, I think the traditional labels don't really apply. I've seen liberal/progressives argue on exactly the same lines. For better or for worse, copyright/patent debates don't seem to fall along traditional political lines. Considering that most of the American political spectrum (despite what you might hear...) does believe in basic property rights, calling copyright "property" gets lots of people to agree that it must be important to support, without having them think through the details:Viewed up close, copyright bears little resemblance to the kinds of property that conservatives value. Instead, it looks like a constantly expanding government program run for the benefit of a noisy, well-organized interest group -- like Superfund, say, or dairy subsidies, except that the benefits go not to endangered homeowners or hardworking farmers but to the likes of Barbra Streisand and Eminem.Where it gets fun is that Baker points out that you could pull the same trick elsewhere, by calling other non-property things property. For example, he tries to explain how property rights supporters could be taught to like the TSA's security procedures if we just noticed the "property rights" inherent in the discussion:
It looks like Superfund in other ways, too. Copyright is a trial lawyer's dream -- a regulatory program enforced by private lawsuits where the plaintiffs have all the advantages, from injury-free damages awards to liability doctrines that extract damages from anyone who was in the neighborhood when an infringement occurred. ... It's asbestos litigation for the Internet age.
Conservatives -- and especially libertarians -- seem like a cheap date on this issue. You'd think libertarians would have been in the forefront of objecting to governmental intrusions into our lives at the behest of a special interest -- let alone the creation of a new class of quasicriminals, defined as more or less everyone who entered high school after 1996, who can be investigated and prosecuted whenever the government or some member of industry decides that they are too troublesome.
Come to think of it, maybe I can persuade readers here that TSA's new enhanced security measures are just fine -- as long as we enforce the rules by giving all the passengers on the plane a "property" right not to travel with people who refuse body imaging and enhanced patdowns. Instead of relying on oppressive government regulation, we’d just let the passengers collect millions in "statutory damages" from noncompliant travelers.And that's kind of the point. You can create all kinds of fake "property rights," if you want to distract from what's actually going on. But it doesn't make the underlying issue property.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, language, property, property rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Old man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarians are Split
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libertarians are Split
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libertarians are Split
Ditto, well I'm a recovering Democrat too I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libertarians are Split
The only thing that can be said is that the IP debate does not fall neatly into the traditional ideological/political spectrum that has shaped debates in the U.S. in recent decades. However, the debate over IP still remains a debate over how to define fundamental concepts of rights and freedoms, which is why it remains so contentious when a large philosophical chasm remains between the two sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will also be interesting to see what they value their "property" at once they have to pay tax on that value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(3) a copyright, a literary, musical, or artistic composition, a letter or memorandum, or similar property, held by—"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00001221----000-.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Before that, they belonged to the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retailer, who did in fact pay taxes on them. (That's why there are always sales at the end of the 4th quarter to minimize inventory taxes.)
Not every aspect of an analogy must be equivalent. That's why is an analogy, and not simply the same, exact, identical thing. Or to go the dictionary route, property: he right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership : rights of property.
Some land may be property, but not all property is land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Before that, they belonged to the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retailer, who did in fact pay taxes on them." They paid taxes, but not property tax. Or worded another way, they paid tax on the physical items but did not pay tax on the copyrighted "Property." None of you have paid tax on what we are actually referring to as "property" in this article.
But, then again, if I have walking nature trails on my property, that I guide and sell pamphlets about, you will be paying tax, but not my property tax. I will have business tax to pay and if I don't pay my "property" tax, I will no longer own the land to give my guided tours on. See, I am comparing it to real property, not the medium it is recorded on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
Copyright and patents are property .
Ofcourse, you would love that not the be the case, but the fact is, they are consider by the law, and by anyone who can think as property.
Look at copyright for example, you are saying copyright is not property, (which is wrong). But what is protected under that particular copyright.
For example a text, something you have written. If you do not own that text as property then what the HELL is it ?
You invent something, you write it down, you including diagrams, and examples and you show how it is new and innovative, that is the property you own. You do not own patents or copyrights, you own A Patent or A copyright on the product of your labours.
Why can you not see this Mike, why do you think there is or can be no property behind a copyrighted or patented work..
So If I write a book as far as you are concerned that book does not exist, no effort or energy went into writing that book, and that book is not to be considered 'property'..
Really Mike, what world are you from ? Do you not understand even the most basic concepts ?
Are you willing to show any examples of where the 'fact' that copyright is not property has influenced any legal decision regarding copyright or patents ? I guess not, really sometimes Mike I wonder if you know what day it is!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
If you read it out loud in the woods and nobody hears it, is it property? ... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
We need to re-invent the wheel?
I designed some new square wheels, but in all of my tests, erosion made them round. Will I be sued for infringing on someones "copyright?"
How much "property tax" do you pay on your copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
By my reading, your statement above is a good example of where peoples' brains shut off when they hear the word "property". Do you really not understand that the ideas that are represented by the words on that piece of paper are fundamentally different that the physical piece of paper? Do you not understand that the laws which are labeled "intellectual property" are actually government-granted monopoly privileges? Just because you are confused by or are ingorant of the differences between real property and IP, doesn't mean they are the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
Look at copyright for example, you are saying copyright is not property, (which is wrong). But what is protected under that particular copyright.
For example a text, something you have written. If you do not own that text as property then what the HELL is it ?
The text that you have written, which is property, is not 'A copyright', it is a text that you have written, and it is property. The copyright that you get on that text, is by definition, a government granted monopoly on the 'rights' of that property. That is a privilege you are given, it is not some type of extra property that you now possess. You are trying to make us believe that two separate entities are one in the same, and you look foolish doing so.
You invent something, you write it down, you including diagrams, and examples and you show how it is new and innovative, that is the property you own. You do not own patents or copyrights, you own A Patent or A copyright on the product of your labours.
You do not OWN a patent or a copyright, you are granted that privilege, similar to a driver's license or hunting permit. Your patent can be invalidated, why, because you don't own it. Your book can not be wiped from existence, unless you wish it so, because you DO own it.
Why can you not see this Mike, why do you think there is or can be no property behind a copyrighted or patented work..
So If I write a book as far as you are concerned that book does not exist, no effort or energy went into writing that book, and that book is not to be considered 'property'..
This is one of the biggest jumps off a cliff I've ever witnessed. I can't speak for Mike, but my understanding is that he wholeheartedly believes there is property behind copyright. But he is smart enough to also see the difference between the property and the privilege, which you appear to have a hard time with.
I hope you're young enough to still be in school, because there seems to be a lot left for you to learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
Though, just to be facetious, a copyright is in fact property. Not only can the work can be sold, but the copyright to the work itself can also be sold.
Both are considered to be property under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
Why can you not see this Darryl Ping Pong Yang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
Other Guy: What? I'm just standing here doing nothing.
Guy: You're breathing my air. You can't do that, I already breathed that air and thusly hold a breatheright over it.
OG: Um, what is this a joke? I'm just breathing, I take in air, and breathe it back out.
G: Yeah, well 80% of what you breathed out was mine, CEASE and DECIST!!!
OG: No, I'll just go stand over here next to this guy
TG: Sup?
OG: Sup.
G: Nope, you can't do that either. I bought his rights last week.
TG: Yep. Don't steal our breatherights, dude.
OG: Okay, if you guys are so freaked out about your "breatherights" why don't I just open the window?
G: WHAT!!?? FILE SHARING?? PIRATE!! There's a pirate over here!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
You mean, like this one? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).
How many do you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
"stolen, converted or taken by fraud"
That is the loophole used, it does not refer to property, many believe it was a bad ruling as well.
But that ruling (from 1985) most certainly DOES NOT imply that copyright or Intellectual PROPERTY is somehow not property.
Just that this guy did not steal, convert or take by fraud. but he admitted to copyright fraud.
And its not the product you take its the right to copy that product, and the product is real and physical and is someone's property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
It just rolls off Mikes tongue like he's said it a million times before, oh wait,, he has..
Ofcourse, we all know its just not true, yes, a total lie. its neither government granted nor a monopoly, nor a privilege.
So, 3 strikes, Mike your OUT..
Ofcouse you expand how it is this so called government granted, monopoly priviledge.. or how it possibly be any of those things..
But Mike im sure if you say it over and over and over enough times you might be able to move some weak minds..
so how is it not property, how is it government granted, and is it a monoploy, and how is it a prividedge.?
Its a RIGHT, for a start, If I own some property, (say I write a book) that is MY FREAKING property, and if you think otherwise, you are welcome to come to my house and take it.. good luck with that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Then surely it would be my RIGHT to do with that book as I please even it that means sharing or copying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
But would that no also apply to the person who wrote the book, sure he did not have to buy it, but how is it not his property ?
Seems you're argument is agreeing with mine,, thanks..
Because if you accept that when you buy a book the book is your property.. That is true.
But when you buy a book you do not buy the copyright for that book so allthough you can buy the book and own it, you cannot copy it..
The only person who has the right to make copies of that book legally is the owner of the copyright of that book.
If you wanted to pay the great deal extra to buy the rights to the book then you would own the property, that is the legal right to make copies of said book.
But to claim if you buy it its property, but if you write it its not property does not make much sense.
It has to be either or both, and keeping in mind all the time, you are not buying to right to copy the book, you are buying to book..
Generally the cost of the right to copy a book will be considerably higher than the right to own a copy of the said book..
But its all property, the original draft of the book by the auther, right down to your own copy.
I still have no idea how mike can make it up in his mind that it is not property.
When even you, and most other people with a brain can see that is is property..
That is apart from the FUD that its somehow a monopoly, or a government granted monoply, or a priveledge.
Its not a priveldege its a RIGHT, therefore the RIGHT in COPYRIGHT.
So Mike if someone pays you $5000 to look at their business plan, what do you give them in return ? what do they get for their $5000 dollars down ?
I bet you would give them some kind of report, an intellectual analysis of their business plan, would that not be the property of the person who paid you $5000 to acquire that information.
Or according to you what you do for your $5000 is not worth anything and should not be considered as property.
What do you say to the tax man when he askes you how you got that $5000 ?.. "Someone just gave it to me, I did not have to do anything for that" he gave you $5000 and you gave him in return NO PROPERTY..
No Mike, you know that is a lie, why confuse these people that think you tell the truth ?..
Those people who cannot read or it appears think for themselves Mike.. ?? its quite sad what you are willing to say for your cause !!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
"so you are saying if you buy the book it becomes your property, sure it does.
But would that no also apply to the person who wrote the book, sure he did not have to buy it, but how is it not his property?"
C'mon, this isn't that hard. Property is owned by a single entity, assuming no revenue sharing is happening. If the person who buys the book owns it as PROPERTY, then they can do as they please w/it, including copying it.
"But when you buy a book you do not buy the copyright for that book so allthough you can buy the book and own it, you cannot copy it."
Correct, because of the law that says you can't copy it. That law is NOT PROPERTY. Copyright is NOT PROPERTY, it's a law. Just as we have no free speech property, there is no copyright property. Why is this so difficult?
"But to claim if you buy it its property, but if you write it its not property does not make much sense."
That's not the damn argument and you know it. The argument is that you can't sell something to me, tell me it's my property, and then tell me what to do with it. That's just common sense.
"It has to be either or both, and keeping in mind all the time, you are not buying to right to copy the book, you are buying to book."
RIGHT! It's MY book. Stop telling me what I can and can't do with MY PROPERTY. The book is property. Copyright is NOT. Copyright is just a damned law. It's no more property than a speed limit is property.
"That is apart from the FUD that its somehow a monopoly, or a government granted monoply, or a priveledge."
Seriously? Not a monopoly? What do you think the exclusive rights to their creations is, if not a monopoly? Now, you won't get any argument from me that copyright is by definition a right granted by the state (as opposed to rights granted by nature, for instance), but why pretend it isn't a monopoly when it so clearly is?
"So Mike if someone pays you $5000 to look at their business plan, what do you give them in return ? what do they get for their $5000 dollars down ? I bet you would give them some kind of report, an intellectual analysis of their business plan, would that not be the property of the person who paid you $5000 to acquire that information."
Right. It'd be THEIR report, since they paid for it. And they could make as many copies of it as they please, because they own it....
"What do you say to the tax man when he askes you how you got that $5000 ?.. "Someone just gave it to me, I did not have to do anything for that" he gave you $5000 and you gave him in return NO PROPERTY.."
Are you suggesting that we can tax copyright? Because if you want to pretend it's property, it should be taxed that way....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Publish that book, make a million copies, sell it to a million people, and that book is no longer yours. It's now owned by a million others. You have no right to go into those people's homes and stop them from making copies of the book they now own, like they have no right to come into your home and take your unpublished book!
Copyright is a privilege conditionally granted, which temporarily suspends the right to copy from the million people and gives it only to you as the author. This is to encourage you to take the book from under your mattress and publish it, as you are promised you will retain control of your work for a limited time (which implies potential profit).
So it is not a right, it is a privilege of finite duration, that is granted at the expense of other people's property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
I know you are simply ignoring it because you do not like it, but the point is that an idea is not property. They are very different. You can own a brick. You can take that brick and build it into a wall, you can shine it up and display it, you can bury it under your porch. If someone comes and takes your brick, they have stolen it - you no longer have it. If you sell that brick, they take it away and you no longer have your brick.
A book? Well, if you write a book, and you make copies of the book, if someone wanted to have a copy of your book and you sold it to them, they now OWN THAT COPY of the book. They can take that book and read it, sell it to someone else, burn it, or bury it under their porch. Copyright says they cannot make a copy of that book. There is nothing in nature preventing this, it is a government granted monopoly - on you, as the write can make a copy because the government says so. Now, by the working by which this monopoly has been granted, it was done so to provide you incentive to create new books - not as a way to live off a single book forever.
How is that wrong? - Oh, I forgot, you do not care about reality, you just want to live off of a monopoly right forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
only you, as the writer
...sorry about that - poor typing this morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Not disagreeing with most of your post, Michael, but I feel like this bit slightly mischaracterizes the purpose of the copyright, at least the way I'm reading the sentence. It sounds like you're saying the copyright in Book A was granted as an incentive to encourage the writer to generate a new Book B, rather than just protecting and collecting from Book A forever. But really, the copyright in Book A was granted in order to incentive Book A in the first place.
Yes, Book B should be incentivized also, as all creative works should be, etc. And yes, the copyright should be (constitutionally must be) finite. But I didn't want the point to be missed that Book A is protected because otherwise Book A itself would never have been written. I feel like that point is ignored by comments like #6 by Anonymous Coward; if taken seriously, comments like those would basically end a bunch of content industries. Not just current outdated models, but the whole industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
I've written a couple of books, even registered copyright on them to learn how it was done, but they will never go anywhere. They are overly cathartic messes, I know this and will not inflict them on others out of a sense of public duty.
But I wrote them anyway. Copyright was no incentive whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
No, it would utterly reform the content industries effectively turning them on their heads and ultimately making the content far less "industrial," (I wonder if Justin Bieber would ever be Artist of the Year in that world.) I don't disagree that the change would be sweeping, but I think it would be hugely beneficial.
Your notion that books would cease being created is just plain wrong. Far too many books are already given away for free. Far too many sound business models have already been built on free content. You have no basis from which to say, Book A would never have been created. What you could accurately say is, Book A may not have been created because there was less incentive to do so.
Well, that's true, but your comment ignores the reality that there is far less cost of creation for books today than there was when copyright was first instituted and YET we have not reduced the incentive measure to match. Rather we have pushed it beyond the limit of reason. I say "incentive measure" rather than "incentive" here, because we also can't say with any certainty that a longer copyright-life creates a more compelling incentive.
Given today's ease of entry and ease of publication, I'm quite convinced we could have thriving content industries with EVEN GREATER INCENTIVE to create if you reduced the copyright term to 5-10 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Technically speaking, Book A is protected because otherwise Book A itself would never have been published.
The point of copyright isn't to incentivize creation, it's to incentivize publication. It's not there to get authors to write, it's there so the public will get access to the author's works.
The difference becomes clearer when discussing copyright's kissing cousin, patents. Without patent laws (so the theory goes), inventions would all be "trade secrets."
It's a minor point, but significant. The goal isn't to subsidize authors. It's to enhance the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
You can copyright a book, and you can own and copyright a book. But you cannot copyright an idea..
everthing that exist that is man made was born from an idea, and many idea have no meaning to anyone else but that person.
Are you saying your own imigination, your own creativity, your own ability is not a part of your overall property.
I can design electronics, that is a skill that cost me alot of money and time to acquire, its not an idea, its not even a thought, its not a book or anything physical, but it is a property that I own, and it is something no one else can buy.
They can gain a similar property themselves, just as you can probably think of many idea's in a second.
But you may never in your life have an idea what is of great value to you and to the rest of the planet should you decide to tell people about it.
Even then an idea by iteself does nothing, it is not until that idea is realised into something tangable, real that it becomes valuable.. but the idea, and the physical realisation of that idea is your property.
An idea is think about writing a book about a warlock school, mean's nothing itself.. A product of that idea might be the draft of the Harry potter book.
So the idea is property, but the draft is also property, and the right to copoy that draft and sell it as also a property, and a right of the property owner.
how can it be any other way..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Eureka! Yes, I am saying that, because what you think is your own imagination is simply an almalgum of every input that you have ever had, and is therefore not completely yours either, but consists of copying. Yes, your imagination darryl is a product of copying (and perhaps lead poisoning), and is not your property. If you have an idea and share it and THEN I take it and think about it and remake it in part or in whole and modified, much or little, then I have done nothing different (barring lucidity and comprehension).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Yes, of course you OWN the actual piece of property you created. Anyone would be an idiot for trying to say you don't. But then again, NO ONE SAID YOU DON'T, you simply misunderstood.
It's the supposed "right" to make and distribute COPIES of the item you own that Mike is talking about here. The problem he's discussing is also beautifully demonstrated in your post by your completely missing the distinction. You believe that there is some inherent right that anyone who creates something has to be the only one allowed to create and distribute copies of what they've created, and that it is somehow morally or inherently wrong for anyone else to do so.
And therein is the problem. While most of us here would agree that for some short period it would be appropriate to grant that person such a privilege, there is no inherent right demanding somehow that that be done, and the whole problem with current copyright law is that it takes this idea and runs rampant with it, granting this "right" practically add-infinitum now.
Hopefully this helps you see what the real issue being discussed here is, and understand what the distinction between your property and copyright is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Does that right transfer to me when you transfer the property to me? If yes, great, I have no problem with that.
If no, then property is property and copyright is copyright and they are separate issues. As far as copyright being a government granted monopoly, well that's just Mike restating the law for you, buddy. Copyright is an exclusive right to make and distribute copies, including copies of copies, so that even if I sell you a copy, you only own the right to read and not the right to write, you savvy? By nature, if you own a copy you would have every right to do whatever you want with your property, but if the government grants me an exclusive copyright, well then you no longer have the freedom to do that. That's all Mike is sayin', dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
I find it laughable you continually find reasons to attack article after article, but yet you keep posting.
Here's an idea: why don't you get out?
I've no problem if you stay, but each time you post, you lose credibility and maturity. You come off as a troll, not a debater.
I don't like the "report" button on the replies (I feel it's completely against TD's open comment section), but I do wonder how many people press them when they read your posts.
Something to think about. Personally, I hope you educate yourself in the near future, especially if you believe ideas are properties.
On topic now: this is why I can't stand the term "intellectual property". It's a way to encapsulate ideas and use them to pass legislation or use as litigation tools.
COICA: Censoring Online Internet Connections in America, all thanks to "intellectual property" protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
what I object too is how Mike, does not tell the truth, he says whatever he thinks will have the biggest effect. Regardless of the truth.
It has been said by me, and other's here that Mike is doing himself no favours by his statements..
He constantly claims knowledge that his comments do not reflect, and I hate to see simple facts twisted and warped for his political gains..
If you are going to present a case, present it based on the law as it stands and the truth.. that applies to me, you and even 'the mike'..
Free speech does not mean you can say what you like regardless of its truth or not, or its accuracy.. Mike constantly makes claims of fact that are clearly wrong, misleading or outright lying.. you choose.
And that is why im here, if Mike was honest, I would have nothing to do..
The fact that I do post alot is an indication of what needs to be corrected from Mike, basically everything..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
You are hereby cleared to make the assumption without liability. Consider this a permanent vacation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye old, "Govment-granted monoply priveledges, Mike we heard you the first million times you said it, we still done believe you.
Also, "political gain"? Mike is running for a political position in some capacity? Sweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repeat after me
Every time you hear someone talking about IP laws or rules, tell them you don't believe in imaginary profitables.
(or you can continue believing the lie that artificial scarcities are going to be some sort of absurd savior for failing business models... the choice is yours.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Conservatives" tend fascist; "libertarians" tend plutocrat.
As to true property rights, Darryl is correct. A property of the sort under discussion exists when created, and copyright is to guarantee the creator a chance to profit from what is otherwise *easily* stolen, yet nonetheless property.
Where I depart from others is in my solution: roll back copyright to an actually limited period, *no* corporate ownership of copyright, tax the hell out of the rich in general, and more when income is unearned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Conservatives" tend fascist; "libertarians" tend plutocrat.
If you want it to be property, then make it property, just remember we have laws that make the property sold to me my property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Conservatives" tend fascist; "libertarians" tend plutocrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP laws are imaginary boundaries created to contain the sheep, to take away the capabilities of others to work for themselves and have a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual property is property
A dairy subsidy is not a property right because it does not carry with it the ability to exclude others from having a similar or even identical subsidy. Same for a Superfund.
The majority of copyrights go not to Barbara Streisand or Eminem but to smaller artists and smaller authors. Mike, you know this but you choose to deliberately imply otherwise.
Einstein had a sarcastic quip about people like Mike, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual property is property
While you may have the authority to tell people not to copy the idea (story in a book, pictures, sounds in a song, images in a movie, lines of code in an application, etc), you do NOT have the ability to stop them and I think that's the point Mike is trying to make.
With physical property (i.e. a brick), you can lock it away, put guards around it, hide it or whatever else you may desire to prevent people from gaining access to your item. With "intellectual property" (i.e. a song), once it's published or distributed you can no longer physically stop everyone from making copies. Yes, the law is on your side, but that law is the government granted restriction that is being discussed. Calling the idea "property" does not truly make it a physical item that you can restrict. All it does is taint the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intellectual property is property
One interpretation underlying the concept of property is scarcity. That is people begin to assert ownership of physical objects when scarcity creates a perceived value. Water rights for example. So, if something can be infinite rather than scarce, then the property right to that something should vaporize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual property is property
Yah I see how imaginary property is like real property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual property is property
Property implies exclusion, however it is a logical fallacy to say that exclusion implies property.
Moreover, the exclusion relating to property is an innate one, borne not only from law but chiefly out the scarcity of physical possession. The objects of copyrights and patents cannot be possessed as they are not subject to physical limits, hence any exclusion is purely artificial.
If patents and copyright are not property, and they are artificial and practically unenforceable, are they at least necessary? As things are looking, they most likely aren't. But if people realise that's the case, IP lawyers such as yourself would be out of a job, and that's why you feel the need to assert they are god-given rights. Now, who bears the greatest bias, you or Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual property is property
Bruce, the problem, which I think is what Mike is saying (at least in general), is that what you call intellectual property doesn't work like ANY OTHER property in terms of how it can be treated by the law.
You see, apart from the Constitutionally granted monopoly that is a copyright (let's set aside for now other IP issues for simplicity), under ordinary property laws your assertion of copyright on say, your book, would constitute a de facto violation of my right of quiet enjoyment of my copy machine, paper, and my legally purchased copy of your book. As it is, we as a society have created a rather fuzzy concept known as copyright, essentially a broad civil contract regarding rights to reproduce an existing work. We (our founding fathers, that is) felt it would promote art and science (says so right in the Constitution).
What Mike seems to be saying, is that treating the terms of this contract as a de facto property right is dysfunctional. It doesn't work. Control of the "property" requires massive imposition on potential violaters, it places undue burdens on the same as well as on the rest of us, and further, the extent to which its proponents would expand it encroach deeper and deeper into the property rights of others, namely their quiet enjoyment of works they have acquired legally.
Finally, he constantly points out the irony in how copyright expansion proponents seem to shoot themselves in the foot over and over trying to excercise "property control" over what really shouldn't be viewed as property specifically because trying to control it to the degree that they do is wasteful and economically harmful.
I sometimes wonder that Mike focuses so much time on the lack of underlying scarcity, and (to my mind) misses the heart of his opponents by underemphasizing the right of others' quiet enjoyment of their own property. If anything, that shift in emphasis might (let us hope), bring some clarity to the issue that people who promote freedom in fair copying are not pirates, but just want to be left alone with their own stuff unbothered by someone else's ranting about 6 out of 10 lines of some article being quoted on a webpage or some song being re-mixed in a mashup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual property is property
No, it shows many people's thoughtful analysis and understanding of why it is not, in fact, property.
That ability to exclude others is the essence of the right that the patent, trademark or copyright grant conveys to the patent owner.
Trademark is an entirely different concept, and is based on consumer protection. That you seek to include it here again displays an ignorance of the history of these laws.
You may play Don Quixote and argue incorrectly that these should not be property (i.e. that the Constitution should be changed), but you know very well they are property under current law.
This is not true. They are a monopoly privilege granted by the government. The use of the word "property" for copyrights and patents did not come about until long after both monopoly privileges were established -- and were done so by those seeking to exploit the monopoly privileges for greater benefit. The idea to call trademark property is a much more recent invention.
The majority of copyrights go not to Barbara Streisand or Eminem but to smaller artists and smaller authors. Mike, you know this but you choose to deliberately imply otherwise.
I never suggested otherwise.
Einstein had a sarcastic quip about people like Mike, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
I have not done so. Lying does not make you look good Bruce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could someone define property for me?
And on the point of being "government-granted," isn't there a level on which that's equally true of physical property. It's illegal to steal my car, which means the government has put into its laws (both civil and criminal) that I'm protected against you doing that. If government didn't enshrine my rights in that car, you could take it with no retribution. Perhaps governments have given more or different protections for IP, but the basic fact that they're "government-granted" comes off to me a bit like a red herring.
Btw, Hulser---the difference you're mentioning between the ideas (or expressions, really) represented by the words and the paper itself can actually be turned around on you. That same difference is what undercuts others' arguments that buying the book should mean you have unfettered rights to copy, share, etc. (Like comments #6 & 8 here by Anonymous Coward, or to a lesser degree #7 by btrussell.) As your post implies, buying the book is different from buying the ideas/expressions/words. I don't know that you (meaning generally the people who are agreeing with Mike's post, not you in particular) can have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could someone define property for me?
It is illegal to steal my car because it is illegal for me to perform the retribution I desire to inflict on you for stealing my car.
If I could legally hunt you down and kill you, it wouldn't be necessary for grand theft auto to be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could someone define property for me?
The difference is in the justification.
To justify a law we must look deeper than the law itself. We cannot, for example, say IP gives a right, infringement offends it, therefore infringement is wrong. That is circular -- a logical fallacy. We must consider things prior to all legal and social constructs.
In normal property the right is grounded in physical fact. Removal of an owned object renders some wrongful harm of deprivation. If I take your car, you lose access to it. In intellectual monopoly the right is *not* grounded in physical fact. Copying does not render any such harm. If I copy your music, we *both* have use of it.
Remember, this is considering the underlying behaviour and phenomena: responding that copying *does* render harm because of reduced possibility to sell fails the earlier restriction. That harm exists only because the law makes it harmful.
Why should we have a law that imposes a restriction where none is called for at a basic physical level? and furthermore, where what is restricted is actually beneficial?
That is the most important matter to address. And the point of the original article is that it requires one *not* to see how IP is like property, but how it is *different* from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could someone define property for me?
I go buy a nice chicken breast from a local farmer. I then print hundreds or thousands of chicken breasts and sell them to the local market at a price much lower than the chicken farmer.
Did I steal from the chicken farmer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could someone define property for me?
David, to truly understand property, you need to understand where the concept of property first came from. It's a concept that was developed, implicitly, to allow for the more efficient allocation of scarce resources. If you have a scarce resource, then property rights indicate how that resource is allocated.
The problem with defining copyrights and patents as property is that the underlying expression or inventions behind them are not scarce, and thus, there is no need for efficient allocation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
I get that an expression can be costlessly reproduced in a manner that a physical good can't, and is not scarce in the way that a physical good is. I get that IP is different from physical property. But those differences don't strike at the core of property-ness as I see it. At the very least, I think it would go too far to state that a copyright is quite simply not property, and this point is so obvious that it is misleading to call it property. (Which has certainly happened in the comments, if not the original post.)
In the end, I think you're coming at the question backwards, excluding IP from being property because they don't fit an old concept, which seems to ignore how property is perceived today. And I realize that you probably think similarly of me, that I'm putting undue emphasis on people's instincts rather than on the historical basis. But given your original post's point that people are being erroneously led to thinking of IP as property, I think it's unwise to ignore people's instincts in favor of history. They're not likely to ignore their instincts because those instincts disagree with history.
And there IS an element of instinct involved, it's not just blindly following the term "property." Baker's humorous attempt to demonstrate his point by framing the TSA issue as being about "property" doesn't work, because it is trying to force a label rather than resonating with some part of people's instincts. With copyrights and patents, there's a "thing" that people can conceptualize, if a non-scarce one, that makes the "property" label seem acceptable.
This whole thing reminds me of arguments about prescriptive grammar. I can be a bit prescriptivist at times, getting angry that "literally" is being used incorrectly virtually everywhere, for example. But at some point, the popular meaning of a word can change enough that the prescriptivist's historical meaning doesn't really matter any more. Yes, he started off correct that "aggravate" doesn't mean "annoy," but maintaining that argument today just wouldn't work.
That, give or take, is why I don't find the historical perspective particularly convincing. It seems to be talking about the "proper" definition of property, rather than addressing what property actually means to today's society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
You may find some of the writings of Richard Epstein of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
I see your point, but I will argue that it actually matters quite a bit. If we are discussing this from an economic standpoint -- in terms of trying to optimize the economics results (i.e., create the greatest marginal benefit, which is supposedly what copyright is about), then the scarcity/abundance question becomes central to it. So understanding the actual reason for property is kind of key.
In the end, I think you're coming at the question backwards, excluding IP from being property because they don't fit an old concept, which seems to ignore how property is perceived today.
No. I'm coming at it from the angle of understanding key differences between property and ideas/expression/inventions/etc. If are seeking to maximize benefit, then you need to understand the fundamental nature of such things. Classifying things that are not property as property does not help, and only serves to confuse or (more regularly) to mislead.
But given your original post's point that people are being erroneously led to thinking of IP as property, I think it's unwise to ignore people's instincts in favor of history. They're not likely to ignore their instincts because those instincts disagree with history.
I wouldn't say that it is people's instincts necessarily, but a coordinated campaign by those who benefit greatly from those thinking of such things as property. It serves their benefit to do so, so they have encouraged it for quite some time.
I don't believe that is a legitimate reason to accept the wrong definition.
Yet, even if we accept your argument that people have an instinctual feeling of property rights towards an expression/invention, again, I would challenge that, and state that if that is the case, then there still need not be copyright/patent law. Because copyright and patent law is not about protecting the property, but about stopping others from creating their own products -- be they copies (copyright) or inventions (patents). It seems, if anything, that it would be seen as a restriction on the property rights of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
Just my opinion, but this view seems to be "faith based".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
Just my opinion, but this view seems to be "faith based".
I'm sorry. Are you honestly suggesting that there is no evidence of the economic benefits to removing monopolies?
Do you really wish to go down that road, because you're about to look very, very ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
Perhaps it might be more useful to consider the question "Are there circumstances where society as a whole is better off because of the existence of a monopoly, i.e., without the monopoly society would be less likely to realize a societal benefit, including, perhaps, realizing that benefit in a more timely manner?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
Perhaps it might be more useful to consider the question "Are there circumstances where society as a whole is better off because of the existence of a monopoly, i.e., without the monopoly society would be less likely to realize a societal benefit, including, perhaps, realizing that benefit in a more timely manner?"
Er. That last question *is* asking about economic benefits. "Society as a whole is better off" is exactly what "economic benefits" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
As I had thought I made clear, your question is no question at all, but a tautology.
Perhaps it might be more useful to consider the question "Are there circumstances where society as a whole is better off because of the existence of a monopoly, i.e., without the monopoly society would be less likely to realize a societal benefit, including, perhaps, realizing that benefit in a more timely manner?"
Right. That question has been answered plenty of times throughout history, and the answer is no.
Could there be exceptions? Perhaps, but the burden would be on you to show how pretty much all of fundamental economics is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
I think this ends up being a bit circular. You start off by saying "if" we're discussing it from an economic standpoint, but I actually don't think I am. I believe you're coming at it from an economic point of view because your definition of property is rooted in economics. If that's the definition of property that you use, then yeah, it makes sense to figure out what's property with an economic analysis.
But if we're debating whether your definition is the proper one, I think there's a first step---the justification for why the economic perspective is appropriate---that's missing. As is, the argument seems to conclude that allocation and scarcity are key by also beginning with that belief as an unspoken premise, which leads to the stated premise that we should approach the definition economically. As someone who doesn't already subscribe to these premises, what is the argument/reasoning for why the term "property" should include only scarce goods?
I must admit, I'm also a bit more generally confused about the connection you're emphasizing between defining property and maximizing benefit. The original post was largely just about how the argument is framed, but didn't actually talk about whether calling IP property itself has immediate legal/economic effect.
Leaving aside for a moment the point that people react more protectively to things that are called "property," is there an economic benefit lost simply by classifying IP as "property?" Or in reverse, what economic benefit would be gained by avoiding the label? Or are you just saying that you believe it is economically beneficial to afford less protection, and due to framing effects it is therefore economically unwise to label IP as property? They're clearly very different points, but I'm having trouble teasing apart which parts of your comments are aiming at which line of thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Could someone define property for me?
Techdirt is about seeing how to play soccer, but all we have is a rugby ball to use. Nevertheless, someone comes along and says: "But don't you understand? The concept of spherical is not just about round things anymore -- ask any lawyer: it is widely accepted that 'spherical' covers various structural definitions now."
It is perfectly fine to dispute definitions of 'spherical'. But it won't help you play soccer with a rugby ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Intellectual Property" and National Security
The US is now in an orgy of deficit spending. China holds X billions of dollars of our debt. What happens if China decides use our IOUs to buy out the patent trolls or to actually buy US corporations, which means also means transferring the ownership of underlying patents to Chinese companies.
China is poised to "invest" in Chesapeake Energy. The New York Times recently raised the "national security" issue when it wrote: ""China’s $2.2 billion investment Chesapeake Energy involves a potential transfer of technology and intellectual knowledge to Beijing that some people in Washington may find uncomfortable, and that unease could trip up the deal."
So, if the US continues the brainless push for "strong intellectual property" we may be at the losing end of the concept. First, China may buy this so-called property. Second, developing countries such as India and Korea may decide to begin charging us licensing fees to use their products. Be careful of demanding a property right that you cannot control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Intellectual Property" and National Security
Some might see this as evening the playing field, but in the end it will lock more down and out, chill even more innovation and speech, strip existing rights, might even lead to tense conflict between nations...
Loosen them and run forward, compete and succeed (or fail, but learn). Beat those that don't give a fig for IP at their own game...
/ramble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I'm confused
Is it just a lack of ability to come up with a suitable title? How about "Creativity Subsidies"? People hate subsidies, especially to mamby-pamby creative types. "Intellectual Monopolies"? Nobody likes a monopoly! "Usage Restrictions"? I hate being restricted! Nobody tells me what to do!
I don't care what people pick but for the love of all that is good, STOP CALLING IT PROPERTY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why I'm confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why I'm confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I think the Tech Lib Front bloggers have a range of positions on the issue.
But you're right: Libertarians are split on the issue. Over the last decade the number of IP skeptics in libertarian circles has grown, though, possibly going from minority to majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Property is simply a set of rights. It doesn't have to be tangible. Business goodwill, lease, mortgage, debt due, stock option, and copyright rights are all property that is not tangible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are all claims, not property. When a mortgage is paid, you don't keep the mortgage, you keep title to the property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legally speaking, they are property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try getting a loan against your "Goodwill Property."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we agree on that then.
"And banks lend out money based on a business's goodwill all the time."
Must be part of the reason they needed a bailout then. Goodwill can and will evaporate quickly.
Banks in Canada lend against assets. If you have a company valued at $80 000 and I purchase it from you at $100 000, then $20 000 is on the books as goodwill. You will not get a loan as a % against $100 000, but rather $80 000.
Otherwise, why not give you $160 000 and borrow only against the $80 000 goodwill?
If you default on payment, will the bank seize your goodwill and put it as an asset on their books?
Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nevertheless, property, is the subject of those rights, not the rights themselves, else you can simply assert your right to control what I can copy regardless of whether it is associated with a work you've created, SO property must be more than just a set of rights but a thing, whether tangible or not, subject to those rights.
The other problem for me is that with copyright as property, the real limit, the thing that is subject to the right of control, is ONLY ME. Essentially upon my receipt and input of your work, I am then the only thing being controlled. In a sense, copyright makes me, specifically my mind (and whatever tools I use to help me think) your property...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not really following you.... They are rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exhibit A: I'm making copies right now and no one is stopping me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is because you are going in circles: 'Property is justified because it is a right. And it is a right because it is property.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Debt due and mortgages are technically contractual agreements. Goodwill is a natural monopoly that a business enjoys on its reputation.
Copyrights and patents stand out from the rest as a government-granted monopolies.
While a business's mortgages and goodwill cannot typically have any diminishing effect on my civil liberties, copyrights and patents can and are being abused to stifle speech and ideas. The question that needs to be answered is whether these monopolies are ethical and necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Calling copyright property misdirects everyone's attention away from that obvious, fundamental, indisputable difference.
And of course that difference really does make all the difference. Hard facts of physical/logical reality tend to. Why do we have a law that restricts something -- copying -- that is intrinsically beneficial? You have to acknowledge the difference to even begin to answer the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they are
At least that's how it's supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An intermediary position
How about an intermediary position: the copyright itself is the property. That is, you own the copyright, but not the thing you have copyright over.
Using the classic example of a book: you own the copyright on the words, but you do not own the words themselves.
That would mean copying is not stealing (what you are copying is not property of anyone), but you can steal a copyright (by for instance using fraud to transfer the copyright on something to you).
In computer science terms (which explain it better, but not everyone knows computer science): you own the pointer, not the thing it points to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An intermediary position
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course. You are right. You're always right honey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You may feel that you "own" it by valuating it and putting it down as something that can be monetised, but legally it's not property, and with the changing tides against patents and copyrights it's debatable whether it will ever be allowed to become real property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the "to truly understand the concept of property Dept..
David, to truly understand property, you need to understand where the concept of property first came from. It's a concept that was developed, implicitly, to allow for the more efficient allocation of scarce resources. If you have a scarce resource, then property rights indicate how that resource is allocated.
Mike your assumptions are very odd, is this what you base your "true understanding" of property ?
So we can add Anthropologist to you're CV now ?
What did you just say here IF YOU HAVE A SCARCE RESOURCE, THEN PROPERTY RIGHTS INDICATE HOW THAT RESOURCE IS ALLOCATED
Perhaps you would like to expand on that with early man, or even modern man ?
OK, I will.. Assume you are a cave man, you labour all day, napping flints, and shaping wood, to make a spear, that spear is your property, you did not make it or acquire it, but what does that have to do with how that spear is allocated ?
You dont have property, to enable you to give that property away, it is not a "concept of property".
The concept of property would have been "This is mine, and not your's"
you try to make out it is much more than that, that it is someone a social order, and a way to allow someone else to gain the property of others. That is not the case.
The problem with defining copyrights and patents as property is that the underlying expression or inventions behind them are not scarce, and thus, there is no need for efficient allocation.
Copyrights and patents ARE SCARCE, how can you say they are not scarce, based on what facts ?
The fact is if you go a little beyond "copyright" or "patent" you find that what those terms have been bestowed on is a UNIQUIE item of property.
Yes, there may be alot of patents, that is clear, but there are not alot of patents for the same unique invention.
For every seperate patent, there is a unique and valuable thing, that is property and is real and is UNIQUE..
If you were right you are saying that because harry potter is copyrighted, that therefore there is an infinite number of harry potter books available for you.
That is not true, harry potter book has a copyright, but the book is unique, there can be lots of copies of that unique book, but only one unique work on that copyright.
So you saying copyright and patents are not scarce is wrong mike, they are totally scarce. as you well know..
that is the problem you face, as it is scarce, and unique and you want to use it, you dont want it to be scarce..
But it is, that is why you are so pissed off, you see how you argue against yourself ?
you see value in something you are not allowed to 'cash in' on, so you try to devalue that thing so you can use it to 'cash in'.
If these things are so common, then why do you want to use someone elses, when that someone does not want you to use it, why not just find something else.. No, you would rather complain about them, so you can get what you want.
If you did not value the item you want to use, you would not be so keen to acquire it to use it, if idea's are so common why fight to use others idea's, or others creations.
Why not just take some of the other infinite idea's that are free to use ?
I know why, because that is not your goal, you want value for free..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop dissembling
As Franklin once said in Poor Richard's, things are not 'bad because they are sinful, but rather sinful because they are bad for us'. Similarly, there is a reason for property rights. No one would build or create anything if they could not be assured they would benefit from it. That applies as much to physical creations (houses, products, etc) as it does to products of the mind. Often small firms bet the farm on their technologies. Without the right to exclude others form using they just become free R&D shops for large corps. It's not that hard to figure this out...once you stop dissembling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual property is property - reminders
Reminder 2 - IP is included as property on the balance sheets of substantially every patent owning company under the heading "intangible assets", and trademarks ARE included and lumped together with patents, copyrights, and recently "goodwill". This is basic accounting, as evidenced by the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board), which is much more authoritative than non-objective bloggers like you. You might check About.com under Investing for Beginners. You are looking very, very ignorant, Mike.
Reminder 3 - It is entirely proper to lump trademarks in with patents and copyrights as "property" and they do NOT arise from the Commerce Clause. Federal trademark registrations arise from the Commerce Clause, but trademarks came long before that. It exposes your ignorance to say otherwise. Again the Supreme Court has decided that trademarks are property (see AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC., PETITIONER v.NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE et al. decided May 10, 2010 in connection with finding that the NFL was not exempt from antitrust law - specifically section 1 of the Sherman Act.) Trademarks are actually the oldest form of intellectual property rights, but were protected under common law. To quote the Supreme Court in 1879 "The right to adopt and use a symbol or a device to distinguish the goods or property made or sold by the person whose mark it is, to the exclusion of use by all other persons, has been long recognized by the common law and the chancery courts of England and of this country and by the statutes of some of the states. It is a property right for the violation of which damages may be recovered in an action at law, and the continued violation of it will be enjoined by a court of equity, with compensation for past infringement. This exclusive right was not created by the act of Congress, and does not now depend upon it for its enforcement. The whole system of trademark property and the civil remedies for its protection existed long anterior to that act, and have remained in full force since its passage." The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) The first trademark statute, enacted in 1870, was struck down by the Supreme Court in The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), for exceeding the powers granted by the patent and copyright clause of the Constitution. Congress responded with the Trademark Act of 1881, which was based on its Commerce Clause powers. The current federal trademark statute is the Lanham Act of 1946, codified in Title 15 of the United States Code. You are looking very, very ignorant, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual property is property - reminders
I agree that Mike does himself no favors by showing how little Mike seems to know about basic economics and commerce. or the law, or politics.
Its very odd that people do not understand that Interlectual Property, actually IS just what it say's it is.
Property..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intellectual property is property - reminders
It's no secret that many folks call IP "property" incorrectly -- including many lawyers. Your "reminders" serve solely to remind people that there are many ignorant lawyers out there who falsely believe patents, copyright and trademarks are property -- and that trademarks are, in any way, similar to copyright and patents.
Reminder 1 - The Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently for more than 150 years held that patents, copyrights and trademarks are property. See Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 197 (1857) (“For, by the laws of the United States, the rights of a party under a patent are his private property”); cf., Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 96 (1877) (“A patent for an invention is as much property as a patent for land”.)
Someone saying something that is incorrect does not change the fact that it is incorrect. They may be considered property by ignorant lawyers, but from an economics standpoint, they are fundamentally quite different -- and that difference is important.
Mike, you and your ilk are wrong, as a matter of law.
I think you mean that some lawyers have, over the years, worked hard to falsely include copyright, patents and trademark as a form of property, despite it not having the same characteristics. There are obvious benefits to those lawyers for doing so, but it does not change the fundamental nature of such things.
But, from an economics standpoint, you are still very, very wrong.
What bothers me is that you seem to presume that because some lawyers have pulled the wool over others eyes, that means the lawyers' definition applies to economics too. That's just scary.
You are looking very, very ignorant, Mike. Lick your wounds, get over it and move on to something where you have at least a remote chance of success-putting unreasonable limits on the property
Bruce, I am not ignorant. I am quite knowledgeable on this particular subject -- much more knowledgeable than you from what I have seen to date. I actually understand what the fundamental issues are, and see no benefit in deluding myself.
You, on the other hand, are an IP lawyer -- someone who benefits from purposely misunderstanding such things. Hard to take you seriously on these matters, unfortunately.
since at least there you are supported by patent pirates, copyright thieves and trademark counterfeiters, who share your desire to open up open up hard-earned IP for free adoption by loafers and free-riders.
Your use of the term "loafers and free-riders" suggests a very worrisome misunderstanding of innovation. It scares me that anyone relies on you for help with patents, since you seem to be wholly ignorant of how innovation works.
I do wonder, do you consider Thomas Edison a loafer and a free-rider?
IP is included as property on the balance sheets of substantially every patent owning company under the heading "intangible assets", and trademarks ARE included and lumped together with patents, copyrights, and recently "goodwill". This is basic accounting, as evidenced by the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board), which is much more authoritative than non-objective bloggers like you. You might check About.com under Investing for Beginners. You are looking very, very ignorant, Mike.
I have an MBA and am quite familiar with FASB (the dean of my program and my accounting prof were former FASB members). They are assets for accounting purposes, but that does not make them property for economic purposes.
Reminder 3 - It is entirely proper to lump trademarks in with patents and copyrights as "property" and they do NOT arise from the Commerce Clause. Federal trademark registrations arise from the Commerce Clause, but trademarks came long before that. It exposes your ignorance to say otherwise.
Quite familiar with common law copyrights. No need to be an ass (though, you do it *so* well). But, let's face it, trademark today is based on the commerce clause and is a form of consumer protection, NOT a monopoly privilege.
Trademarks are actually the oldest form of intellectual property rights, but were protected under common law.
Again, familiar with the common law, but it was a *consumer protection* setup, not a monopoly privilege. Scary that you don't seem to understand the difference.
The first trademark statute, enacted in 1870, was struck down by the Supreme Court in The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), for exceeding the powers granted by the patent and copyright clause of the Constitution. Congress responded with the Trademark Act of 1881, which was based on its Commerce Clause powers. The current federal trademark statute is the Lanham Act of 1946, codified in Title 15 of the United States Code.
Um. Which was my point. It comes from an entirely different part of the Constitution.
Funny that you call me ignorant when the details support my position, Bruce.
Will you apologize for the unnecessary and inaccurate insults? Doubtful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therefore classifying things that ARE property as NOT proerty does not help
No. I'm coming at it from the angle of understanding key differences between property and ideas/expression/inventions/etc. If are seeking to maximize benefit, then you need to understand the fundamental nature of such things. Classifying things that are not property as property does not help, and only serves to confuse or (more regularly) to mislead.
What are those 'key differences' ? that you understand, and assume we dont ?
So what is the "fundamental nature" that you have understanding, that you are not willing to explain, apart from just saying (yes, I know, but you would not understant !)..
Classifying things that are not property as property does not help, and only serves to confuse or (more regularly) to mislead.
Therefore classifying things that ARE property as NOT proerty does not help, it only serves to confuse or (more regularly) to mislead.
You still have not provided any soft of indication that something you wrote, invented, or posses is not your property. You claim understanding, but show none !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]