@ nirgrahamUK
I would say secrets and opinions are owned
I don’t think this is a simple matter, and I don’t think there is the metaphysical content to property rights that others here tend to believe. I do think that recognizing property rights as a community is the only way to reduce conflict in society, and that recognizing IP rights increases conflict. Hence, I think real property should be recognized and IP not. I don’t think that makes me particularly squishy - I think there is some metaphysical content to the requirement to have a system of ethics that reduces conflict.
opinions are owned
so, if you are of the opinion that Germany currently have a better soccer team than England then it could be that you could forbid me from holding that opinion if I am a latecomer to it?
@ OP, I think that argument is the basis of proposals by people like Henry George or Thomas Paine for land taxes; i.e., they’re not really taxes, they’re rent.
people can’t really ‘own land,’ because people can’t and didn’t create the land. We can own the improvements we make on the land, however, because we did make those. So owning land outright is illegitimate, just theft from everyone else, but leasing use of land from everyone else and paying a fee that’s used for common goods could be consensual and beneficial for all parties, even those left out of the process of homesteading and thus it could be achieved without aggression or coercion.
Like, if you co-own a building with a front lawn with 4 other people, and one of the the co-owners goes out and plants tomatoes in the front lawn for sale, fences it off, and doesn’t let the rest of you use the lawn because he has ‘improved it’ and thus claims to own it, that would clearly be illegitimate. But if he asked the four of you if he could plant tomatoes, and agreed to share a percentage of the profits of the tomatoes to compensate the other 4 owners for their lack of access to the lawn, and they agreed, then that would be not only legitimate, but beneficial to all parties.
All the land was originally everyone’s, and it could only have been privatized by coercion (theft) or negotiation, and negotiation involves concessions on both sides.
I want to know whether IP proponents believe that any ideas or products of a persons intellect are ‘ownable’ or whether there is something distinguishing ownable ideas from non-ownable ideas.
- allowing people to ‘own ideas’ is just a mechanism for creating an incentive to invent valuable ideas, just like private ownership of land creates a personal incentive to the land owner to make his land as productive as possible - both land ownership and idea ownership are human legal creations, what’s “ownable” is only a legal question.
Maybe you’re getting at what is legitimately ownable though - I think if someone created something originally, like a novel, I don’t see any problem with them owning it. At the same time, I don’t think copying an idea for personal use is theft, because no one is harmed, but copying something for resale is depriving the original creator of the ability to sell what they’ve created, which is depriving them of income they could legitimately expect.
I think if someone created something originally, like a novel, I don’t see any problem with them owning it. At the same time, I don’t think copying something >for personal use is theft, but copying something for resale is depriving the original creator of the ability to sell what they’ve created.
Did you come up with the idea of owning a novel? Presumably not, it’s been around for a while. Would you consider it a depraved act to include this idea in a book?
allowing people to ‘own ideas’ is just a mechanism for creating an incentive to invent valuable ideas, just like private ownership of land creates a >>personal incentive to the land owner to make his land as productive as possible - both land ownership and idea ownership are human legal creations, >>what’s “ownable” is only a legal question.
except its not just like private ownership of land, since land is scarce and rival. We do not have property as an institution in order to incentivise this and that, but in order to allow for economizing over goods which require economising, and in a roundabout way, in order to enjoy peace and civilisation. incentives are just a positive, emergent ‘by-product’ of private property schemes over economizable goods.
I think if someone created something originally, like a novel, I don’t see any problem with them owning it.
I don’t mind them owning their copies of it, but I can own my copy of it so long as I don’t violate their property rights over tangible goods.
Did you come up with the idea of owning a novel?
Right, so the distinction between ownable and non-ownable ideas is originality.
I would not consider it a depraved act for someone to put one of my original ideas in a book, but I would consider it a questionable act if someone were to quote me word for word without attribution and then include my words in a book they were selling, and a depraved act if I explicitly claimed ownership over my words and was trying to sell them in book form myself…
I don’t mind them owning their copies of it, but I can own my copy of it so long as I don’t violate their property rights over tangible goods.
I think most people agree with that. But what if you owned a printing press and a digital scanner, and your whole business was buying a copy of a brand new book and reprinting it at lower cost, since you don’t have to pay the author, the editor etc.? On the one hand, books would be cheaper if that were allowed, on the other hand, there would be fewer of them, because it would be difficult to make a living as an author it that were allowed.
Oh, IP thread again, I love them. Always interesting to check my own premises and beliefs and try to keep an open mind. Yeah, ownership of an idea is stupid idea.
allowing people to ‘own ideas’ is just a mechanism for creating an incentive to invent valuable ideas, just like private ownership of land creates a personal incentive to the land owner to make his land as productive as possible - both land ownership and idea ownership are human legal creations, what’s “ownable” is only a legal question.
Nice try, but land is physical and scarce, ideas are not. They are just information floating around. You can easily deduce which part of land is “mine” or “yours” (I put it in commas, because I am against absolute land ownership, I support homesteading), but that is not possible with ideas.
Right, so the distinction between ownable and non-ownable ideas is originality.
Every idea is original at some time, for someone. Doesn’t that imply that every idea is ownable?
I think most people agree with that. But what if you owned a printing press and a digital scanner, and your whole business was buying a copy of a brand >new book and reprinting it at lower cost, since you don’t have to pay the author, the editor etc.? On the one hand, books would be cheaper if that were >allowed, on the other hand, there would be fewer of them, because it would be difficult to make a living as an author it that were allowed.
It’s possible they’d also be better. There would be two kinds of authors - those who write part-time, and those who have patrons. I suggest that most full-time authors aren’t so great. We’d restrict being a full-time author to the best of the best. As for the rest, well, a part-time author writes when he has something to say. Plus, you tend to have more to say when you have a regular job and experience that part of life.
Did Leibniz steal calculus from Newton, or was it the other way around?
Question for advocates of IP: How do you qualify the time period that ideas or patterns are protected as property, versus when they become “public”?
To be a devil’s advocate, I would say, that as long as that person is alive he can “own” his ideas. Hmmm
You can come up with it first, but I’ll beat you to the patent office! 
To be a devil’s advocate, I would say, that as long as that person is alive he can “own” his ideas. Hmmm
Why would the person’s property not transfer to his heirs, as with other property? Maybe “intellectual property” isn’t property? Hmmmmz
Neither.
So who could claim ownership to the idea or method?
Ideas cannot be claimed.
Are you suggesting that the philosophical basis for IP is weak, but that doesn’t prevent the creation and enfrocement of laws for it?
How do you qualify the time period that ideas or patterns are protected as property, versus when they become “public”?
Intellectual property, just like any property, is a legal construct. So, laws.
IP is just a legal privilege granted to the originators of ideas, like ownership through homesteading is a legal privilege granted to certain kinds of users of land, or inheritance is a legal privilege granted to dead people.