On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Even today, you don't find the term "intellectual property" in our > copyright statutes. It's in a few footnotes to things that are named > that way. But the law is just what it is: statutory exclusive rights. > In a tricky area, to be sure: how do we have exclusive rights in > original expression, but not facts and ideas? But it always returns, > because the truth of it is ineffable.
. . . And, inconceivable! I might add. :-) My thesaurus says "ineluctible" is the word I need for what I was trying to convey here. (eom) > The same applies in other areas of the law as well. > > This is Enlightenment thought: > http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html > > Declaring that all policy is best "privatized and deregulated" doesn't > make it so. Maybe in many or perhaps even most areas, but have a clue > about where it's nonsense. :-) > > > Seth > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah, there's been no lack of "theory" since the 80's trying to >> concoct this bizarre notion of owning pure abstraction. >> >> The courts have long engaged specifically on the question of how to >> distinguish the non-ownability of information from the subject matter >> of information-related areas in which rights are accorded and >> recognized. It's just basic post-Enlightenment thought and law. Some >> are "propertarian" and try hard to make the law work that way. But >> you can't eliminate the most basic foundations of our civil order >> (often manifest in common law reasoning) just by wishing them away -- >> thankfully. The legacy of law doesn't disappear, even after 30-odd >> years of broad-reaching efforts throughout our institutions to subvert >> it. Especially in common law. Judges there have to try to deal in >> reality. If they try to act like you can own pure information, they >> rapidly run aground. So, it just doesn't happen. Perhaps the biggest >> institutional register of this more recent trend to attempt to apply >> radical privatization even to pure information has been the DC >> Circuit. But it's running aground, too, at long last. But it's been >> everywhere, and for quite some time. I believe we're finally starting >> to see the plain light of reason return though. >> >> Seth >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by >>> operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is >>> readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying >>> this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did >>> with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority >>> to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) >>> registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for >>> routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are >>> reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the >>> [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like >>> domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, >>> they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. >>> >>> >>> If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any >>> party >>> which feels their alleged “property rights” have been abridged to seek legal >>> relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry >>> contrary >>> to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of >>> results >>> which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community >>> policy. >>> >>> The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and >>> rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The >>> Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network >>> Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property >>> where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and >>> updating its registry records. >>> >>> >>> Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an >>> expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of >>> transfers, and this would be become difficult under a “IP property address” >>> regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to >>> recognize >>> the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are >>> supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been >>> issued. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
