The word "have" is just a linguistic feature (in English, no less[1]), or (at most) a concept. It's not inherent in the physical world.[2]
The concept of ownership is ultimately a linguistic and/or social convention. (Some) humans choose to think in terms of ownership, but they need not do so.
[1] - which might not even be present in some other languages, or might not be as natural to talk about as in English
[2] - except to the extent that all thoughts might be argued to be physical, if they are considered to be in the brain and everything in the brain is physical
Sure, but the GGP said they think of all kinds of property as a "government-granted monopoly". The linguistic and social conventions you refer to have nothing to do with government.
Some languages do. It doesn't mean that all languages do, and even in those that do the use of such language may not be as natural as it is in English.
> Even animals have property they defend
Animals do things that some humans may interpret as defense, and and that some humans may interpret as "property", but that doesn't mean that that's what animals are doing, much less that animals think of anything as "their property".
It means the right to benefit from the value of making copies.
It doesn't matter if those copies are made by pushing bits over the Internet or hewn into the side of a mountain by thousands of masons.
It's an access and use right, not a physical instantiation.
Copyleft, open source, CC-by-N etc don't change this or subvert the concept. They're simply ways of asserting that the benefit should be collective instead of individual.
This makes perfect sense for group efforts, but no sense at all for content creators who would derive no benefit at all if copyright didn't exist.
Either you believe in property and access/benefit rights or you don't. You can't believe in them selectively just because you want something and are terribly offended if you're asked to pay for it.
And if you don't believe in property rights - fine. Let's make everything collectively owned, including money. (Which is in fact just bits that can be pushed over the Internet.)
Information isn't property. Property is a concept we use to maintain order and peace around scarce resources. Information is not scarce anymore and never will be again, and applying notions of property to it has always been a misuse.
If you want to encourage the arts, then shorten the work week. People don't need to be incentivized to create art. You couldn't stop them if you tried. And we have more movies, music, books, television, photos, etc than anyone could ever hope to enjoy even in 10 lifetimes.
If you want to encourage basic research, give money to scientists and then get out of their way. People don't need to be incentivized to investigate the universe. You couldn't stop them if you tried.
If you want to encourage innovation, then make source code and blueprints for commercial products open source by law. People don't need to be incentivized to learn about and improve the tools they own. You couldn't stop them if you tried.
And artists wouldn't stop making money. Commissions don't depend on copyright. Neither do thank yous and more elaborate call outs to patrons. As long as an artist can make a decent living at some other job, they'll make art in the time left over that any would-be greatest free country in the world makes sure all its citizens have to actually be free in.
Assuming we want the world's best research by the world's best researchers for the public good, then we need to pay for their equipment, supplies, and workspace. And then when we want the worlds best trained graduates, we pay the researchers to teach them.
And as for innovation, that's not really something we need to incentivize at least right now. We have more technology available then we can keep up with. We don't need dishwashers with Bluetooth, we need dishwashers that you can pay the neighbor's kid 50 bucks under the table to repair, and you'll only be one of four people who paid them this week. Not to mention the gigantic leg up it will give to developing countries struggling to bootstrap their industries.
If you want to play around with patent law for businesses above a certain size (either by revenue, customer base, employee count, or whatever), then I think there's plenty we can do there to challenge big businesses to stay ahead of the curve while making sure small and maybe medium businesses keep nipping at their heels.
But at the end of the day, information is not scarce. So let's stop pretending that we need to manage it like it is.
Yes, there are security mechanisms and social norms that would prevent most people from doing that sort of thing. Yet there are more than enough people out there who would gladly take exception to that sort of thing and gladly take the Tesla as their own. The whole notion of property rights is a social construct. We use governments to enforce that social construct. Until humanity can learn how to share things (rather than just take things), we are certainly better off for it.
Copyright is somewhat different in the sense that it is relatively easy to copy without depriving someone of their copy, yet it can still be viewed as depriving the creator of the potential value of their work.
[1] Don't worry. I don't drive.
That isn’t a “natural” concept, it’s still a legal one.
Vs. even comprehending the concepts of copyright and intellectual property requires a very modern human education and worldview.
(But consider how many $millions are paid to a great many lawyers, contingent on their managing to convince a great many people that those two very different concepts of "property" are the same, and a certain famous quote by Upton Sinclair.)
is there a semantically relevant distinction between property and possession?
i might be inclined to have said "the gorilla is in possession of the banana" but im not sure about "property of"...?
And I don't think animals see this banana as "property of the gorilla" as you suggested.
I think they see it as "if I try to take this banana from that gorilla, I will get slapped"