The tangible (physical) property universe comprises of 10^80 cubic meters of known universe, or 5x10^80 atoms in known physical universe. It would only take 266 bits to map (mark) every cubic meter of known universe with a different 266 bit number.
Each separate instance of information ever created (and is about to be created in the forseeable future) – all books, movies, songs, images, software, etc – can be represented by a 10 gigabyte binary sequence. (This size was chosen to accommodate the longest individual piece of information created, such as the movie Avatar, but could be any size without loss of generalization). The size of the informational universe blanketed by all possible 10 gigabyte sequences is 2^(8x10^9) separate instances which is vastly larger than the 2^266 cubic meters of the known tangible universe.
By creating a unique 10 gigabyte sequence of information an author/producer “homesteads” a particular portion of the whole (vast) informational universe (comprised of all possible 10 gigabyte sequences) much in the same way the first appropriator homesteads (has the strongest claim to ownership of) a particular portion of the whole tangible universe (comprised of all 2^266 cubic meters available). The “area” (in the informational universe) that is “homesteaded” (thus owned) by the creator/producer of any 10 gigabyte sequence is defined by all sufficiently similar 10 gigabyte sequences in the “vicinity” of the original sequence and all (signal processing and information theory-based) transformations thereof.
Thus the case for information as property is presented. Explorers and potential “homesteaders” have the vast informational universe at their disposal. Much of that universe is useless (any random 10 gigabyte sequence), just like most of the 2^266 cubic meters of known tangible universe are useless and yet to be claimed (or homesteaded). However, entrepreneurs, explorers, and potential “homesteaders” willing to commit capital and labor to find the valuable pieces of BOTH informational and tangible universe shall be rewarded by a claim of ownership of such discovered property – informational or tangible, regardless.
Interesting. It would also be the case that prospecting for resources would create a property right. For example if I send geologists out looking for oil deposits, then any oil that I find will become my property.
The intellectual communists would have you believe that anyone should have the right to drill to the same oil because wells are not scarce. This would of course result in the looting destruction of the oil resource.
By establishing an almost full analogy with tangible property, treating information as property would avoid much of the property vs contract rights arguments to which almost all IP vs anti-IP debates eventually devolve. IP is about property rights, pure and simple.
I disagree. It seems you don’t understand the problem. The idea is infinitely reproducible. It’s not a scarce good. You can’t own the idea, and homesteading a 10GB sequence, or a napkin from the bar with the idea written on it, doesn’t give you ownership of the idea.
this is the platonic realm of ideas that clever people go into for the purpose of idea mining from which to return with golden-idea-nuggets, that are just their private property…
the nuggets tarnish from other people utilising the precious concept in their own schemes with their own material property.
This is a bunch of gobbledy-gook. You confuse property titles with actual property. A property title (e.g. your 266-bit number indexing every cubic meter of the universe) assigns and permits exchange of ownership of property, but it is not property itself. As Hoppe, Rothbard, et. al. have explained, when claims to property exceed the amount of real existing property, it is always the result of fraud.
Physical resources are scarce, this is why physical resources can be property. Property titles - much less all possible bit patterns - are not scarce and, therefore, cannot be property. It is a well-known property of our universe that bit patterns can be copied almost indefinitely and, in the digital age, very inexpensively. Physical resources are the opposite of bit patterns in this regard since the physical universe is bound by the law of conservation of mass and energy. Time and space are scarce resources, as well. It is the nature of the physical universe that utilization of a physical resource by me necessarily excludes simultaneous utilization of that physical resource by you. The same is absolutely not true of bit-patterns. Bit patterns can be utilized by indefinitely many people with no degradation to the usability of that pattern by others.
Claims of property in patterns is actually an invalid form of property title which claims ownership over a class of physical objects. For example, if I make a CD album and copyright it, I am claiming title to “all compact discs containing a pattern substantially similar (we can define this, mathematically) or which utilize more than 30 seconds of the audio stored on the master record.” If I can specify how you may or may not use X, you do not own X, you are only a possessor of X. To claim ownership of a pattern is really to claim ownership of all physical resources which conform to that pattern, it is a claim to own a class of physical objects. This is as absurd as a geologist who discovers a new mineral - call it Gezunetite - and, by virtue of his discovery of this new mineral, thereby claims he owns all desposits of the mineral Gezunetite wheresoever they may be located on the planet. Nonsense!
I believe there is a confusion with arguments referring to information as property that rests on the notion of scracity.
One’s means with which to obtain information may be considered scarce, whether that information is naturally rendered in a rather difficult format, or whether it is purposefully concealed using cryptography. This may make the acquisition of such information an economic in the sense that scarce means must be utillised for its attainment, but the information itself is not that which is “scarce.” I think it is easy to confuse the two.
Information is not merely an idea. The idea to make the movie Avatar is an idea. Actually making it, and producing the unique10 gigabyte sequence is most definitely MUCH more than an idea.
Oil wells are also very advanced. It is very easy to drain an oil deposit of all of its oil. Now why wouldn’t the prospector have the right to deny others from draining an oil well that he discovered? He may still utilize his own oil wells to their fullest.
If you want your information to be valuable, it’s up to you to keep it scarce. If James Cameron doesn’t want anyone to copy his movie, there’s a very simple way for him to accomplish this… show it only in venues on his property and only permit people to enter without cameras. Problem solved. The minute you broadcast the information you created, no matter how costly it was for you to create, you have given up “ownership” rights over that information. Limited distribution can be handled contractually, via NDAs. For example, Cameron - in order to earn more money by making it more convenient for moviegoers to see his movie - could sign on major cinema chains to show his movie on condition they not allow any copies of it to be made (yes, this can be done in an enforceable way). As for wide distribution, your only option is to use some kind of DRM-controlled hardware container (e.g. iPod) but the marginal value of this is low if the media being controlled is inherently analog since, once it is played back even on a DRM-controlled hardware container, it can always be copied via direct analog recording.
you can also push out the problem of dispersion onto resellers, like movie theaters owned by other people than yourself, i.e. have them make performance bonds with you as a part to the original sale; that they will not allow camera bearers on their property or distribute the films themselves…
this keeps things within the realm of actual property rights.
Why on Earth would someone have the right to own an oil field? It is just something that exists out there in the universe. The information on the existence of oil fields is not scarce.
Similarly how would someone have the right to own a fishery in the ocean? Anyone may have the right to fish there.
According the communistic theory it is much more efficient to allow “the market” to conduct unlimited fishing and unlimited oil drilling. This view of course will ultimately produce the total destruction of all the Earth’s resources.
If i put the oil field to my exclusive purpose. you cannot put it to your exclusive purpose.
if i have a cd. and you have a cd. and the same music could eminate from both. we can both enjoy music or silence , exclusive control, within our own homes without rivalry.
Here’s what really puzzles me. If you agree that property in information can be legitimately protected via DRM, then why are you opposed to providing the same protection through the security industry? It is much more efficient and much more consumer-friendly.
You can also exploit an oil field without rivalry. Just drill as many wells as you want.
edit: There are also technologies for horizontal drilling, therefore there is nothing limiting how many different producers can exploit the same oil patch.