> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Sigil > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 2:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Ogf-l] On the Nature of Property (long) > > > Whose laws? The United States? Great Britain? Australia? > Russia? Japan? > I am not really interested in discussing the specifics of legal > definitions of certain terms such as "Property," "Intellectual Property," > and "Copyright" in a single country because these legal definitions are not > universal - they vary from country to country - and are therefore not useful > for a discussion about the intrinsic nature of property (which I was trying > to discuss).
NO definitions are universal. There are societies in history where "Property" itself is a meaningless term We have to start with some source for our definitions. Legal definitions have weight in terms of how the contracts play out. And so far as my searches have revealed, legal dictionaries are the ONLY place where your notion of "exclusivity" appears in the definition of "property". > >"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and > >useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the > >exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...." > > > >Call it a misnomer if you like, but it doesn't invalidate the concept. > > Nowhere here does it say an Idea is Property. A Killer Whale is a species of dolphin, not whale. Circuits and trips have legs, even though they can't walk anywhere. Radio antennas are named after the sensory antennae of insects, even though they serve a different purpose. And Intellectual Property is the name for a set of rights in an idea, even though Property means a different sort of rights. Besides invention, language grows by analogy, metaphor, and yes, misnomer. Disagreeing with the name does not invalidate the concept. I have also seen utilitarian definitions of Property which actually fit Intellectual Property pretty well. These focus less on exclusivity, and more on utility AND on the ability to improve the Property through investment. One article -- I've lost the URL right now -- went so far as to claim that Intellectual Property is the only "real" property, because the value of physical property increases as you have better ideas for how to use it. > My point is that Intellectual Property is not Property. It is "an > artificially created set of Rights to a certain expression of an idea." > The key there is "artificially created" - laws create these rights by fiat > because they do not exist naturally. Property is equally artificial, without law to enforce it. Consider societies with no property rights at all. Consider anarchy, where anyone can seize anything by force or guile or persuasion or charm. > >If that discourages the creation of ideas, zero would be a really bad > >target. Society should want some undefiniable sweet spot that encourages the > >creation of the most shared ideas. Every so often, we need to tweak our > >efforts to hit the sweet spot. > > Zero *is* the optimal target for society at large because it means that > ideas and information are free and hence all members of society can be > benefitted easily. Therefore, society "wants" zero. Forgive me, but THAT is short-sighted. Zero is destructive, because it destroys the incentive to create new ideas. If society wants zero, then society is selfish and sort-sighted. Enlightened self-interest on society's part should argue against zero, just as you point out further on. What society should want is NOT all ideas available instantly, but rather the largest number of best ideas as fast as feasible. THAT is the sweet spot. > Lifetime is the > optimal target for the individual, who wants to maximize the benefits for > his work. That is similarly short-sighted on the individual's part. > >"Every so often, we need to tweak our efforts to hit that sweet spot." > > This quote truly scares the me. Look at the real world. I thought we were discussing intrinsic natures, not the real world? Hehehe... Sorry, but the real world can be wrong. Yes, the trend is for rights periods to lengthen; but ideally, the period should contract in some cases as well. Again, every so often, we need to tweak our efforts to hit that sweet spot. > When was the last time you saw copyright terms shortened? Never? Check out the current hoopla over patents, particularly in the pharmaceutical business. It's not a foregone conclusion that IP rights always get extended. > So what you're telling me is that society must continue to sacrifice mutual > benefit of all to the desires of one. I'm telling you nothing of the sort, so I would appreciate it if you didn't mischaracterize my argument. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
