Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

You're punning on the word "monopoly." The monopoly on a specific manifestation on an idea (e.g. a book) is used in the same sense as a property right being a "monopoly" on a specific piece of land, not in the sense of say the AT&T monopoly. It's exclusive control over a specific thing versus exclusive control over a market. The latter is bad for economies. The former is necessary for them to exist.

In a way, a copyright monopoly is far more morally justifiable than monopoly over land. Land in the US is stuff we stole from the American Indians. It was here before you were born and it will be here after you die. Why should you get a monopoly over a piece of the earth? With regards to a book or a song, you created that work. It did not exist before you. Your moral right to control it is much stronger.

View on HN

I fail to see why we should treat tangibile and intangible entities equally. In your opinion, how do you deduce what type of intangible property should qualify as intillectual property? Should chefs own his recipe? Should fragrance designers own their smell? Should phillosophers own their phillosophy?

Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean treating them "equally." "Property" is the legal system's equivalent of Java's "Object" class. All "Objects" share certain common characteristics, but beyond that they are all different. Calling something "property" just applies a certain set of default rules to the thing.

As for "tangible" versus "intangible"--the set of things we call "intellectual property" are not coextensive with the set of intangible things which are called "property." Consider something like a "light and air" right, which is a property right but does not involve ownership of a physical thing. Or consider intangible rights like a vested legal claim, or assignable rights under a contract. We treat all these things under a common framework for the same reason UNIX treats everything as a "file"--it makes everything easier to deal with.

> Treating intangible and tangible entities both as "property" does not mean treating them "equally."

Sure it does. We're treating conceptual entities as physical objects that can be "stolen" (you wouldn't download a car would you?). We treat infinately reproducible entities as scarce resources that can be "pirated". The idea of IP is based on conflating the notions of copying and stealing, which I feel is a set-back for furthering the discussion. I understand IP is a legal invention not observable outside of a legal context, but the issue I see is using the notion of property to justify intillectual property.

Calling something "property" does not mean treating it like a "physical object" because the concept of property is not limited to physical objects. There are lots of things, besides intellectual property, which are "property" despite being intangible. For example, certain assignable contractual rights are property, but are intangible, infinitely reproducible, etc.

> the concept of property is not limited to physical objects

Why not? The word property implies possession. So I ask, what should be considered property?

> certain assignable contractual rights are property, but are intangible, infinitely reproducible

I wouldn't argue that contractual rights should be considered property -- but I find it somewhat irrelevant considering it has no bearing on anyone outside of said agreement. Two people making a voluntary agreement is not the same as a chef demanding nation-wide royalties for copying his dish.

Beyond demanding royalties - demanding that the state enforce his monopoly. This entitlement to someone else enforcing the monopoly is a really pernicious part of the whole "intellectual property" scheme.

stallman's tangible/intangible idea, while a nice first order attempt, might not be the correct lens with which to look at things. I like Nina Paley's "rivalrous/anti-rivalrous" analysis better.

http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/09/culture-is-anti-rivalro...

To steal somebodies culture (like in recording it and putting it in a vault while aserting copyrights) is as bad as stealing ones land, maybe you should debate this with victims of cultural theft.

Monopolies, which are constructs in law to favor friends of rulers, are never morally justifiable.

You're using the word "culture" as a shibboleth for a whole package of entitlements that people on message boards tend to believe in, and not in its conventional sense. Simply labeling my work as "cultural" does not entitle the world to access that work for free; it's my work.

Ironically, you play the opposite semantic game with the word "monopoly", whose technical meaning has already been clearly fleshed out upthread. If all "monopolies" are immoral, then you don't believe in property. Really, though, you're trying to repurpose that word for emotional impact instead of understanding; you mean it as "property rights asserted by people we don't like."

No I do not, I do not feel entiteled to anything and neither should you, while you have the right to have a go to try earning money with your works it does not say you have the automatic right to get that money just because it is your works. You do not have the obligation to share your work with the world, neither do I, still I do share some programs with the world and it is my own choise to do this for free. But I do not have the feling that the world owes me something just because I made some stuff, I do not share all my work for free, some of it I try and make money with with different grades of success but enough to be able to debate with you at this forum. I think you look too narrow at what culture is and I think you thought is too much on ownership and how property is owned by a few. Some things are owned by large groups of people, things like culture. And yes, monopolies (the right of a few or a single entity at cost of the rest of society) are a awful legal construct which has nothing to do with natural rights. Last but not least, I do not know your work and probably it isn worth to know if I see what kind of mind created that work. Good luck with earning your money, if other people grant you that.

The only "natural right" you have is which of your appendages the bear gets to eat first. If you're awake when it catches you.

You also have freedom of scream.

Is there a distinction between sharing among peers and using other peoples work for your own profit?

Is it possible to make a difference how copyright laws are applied to personal/private use and for organizations/corporations?

How is software and "culture" as in music/movies different?

If any, should we make that those distinctions visible in IP-laws?

If you truly want to keep your intellectual work truly and solely to yourself that's fine, just keep it in your head or on secured personal devices.

Once you have shared the work it is not solely yours, others have limited claims on it too. That doesn't mean some exclusive controls on it for a limited time are not a valid balancing of the competing claims of the producer and the recipients of your cultural production.

that's a very US-centric analysis.

In general, you could make a different analysis: Governments should licence monopolies over pieces of the earth to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons. And Because intellectual property does not have the economic property of rivalrousness (and may even be anti-rivalrous), the tragedy of the commons does not apply, and so the moral justification for monopoly licence does not trump the government's obligation to protect the freedom to do what you want with what you have.

Intellectual property is not rival, but it is subject to the free rider effect. Why ignore one economic phenomenon while justifying property with a different one.

labelling someone who uses your intellectual effort as a "free rider" as an argument is circular logic, because that term itself is incumbent on the idea that someone who puts effort into something is a priori entitled to get something back out of it.

"Monopoly" is the word the authors of the copyright clause used. It was considered controversial because governments grants of monopoly are so easily corrupted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com