[fritzo]

Gosh how many folks here believe any sort of property is "real"? I guess I see intellectual property as made up rules, just like exclusion rights on real property are made up rules. We're just riffing off mammalian instinct. We have complete freedom to make up different rules.

[slim]

"property" is the simplest form of governance, whereas a resource is assigned to a person which takes all the decisions regarding the subject including transferring the property to another person. it's really a very old governance model well understood in most societies.

now IP is a confusing form of governance because all the contradictions mentioned by gran parent comment while being named "property" and because it's being applied to something that is not a resource which means it does not even need governance in first place

[bcrosby95]

I've come to view physical property as the odd one out.

IP makes sense to me - you are assigning ownership of purely human created constructs, and someone assigning me Mickey Mouse doesn't use up a resource and prevent you from making your own IP.

But physical property... you're telling me that someone ('someone' being a government - who probably took it by force from some other group of people) can just "assign" me something no human had a hand in creating, I can morph it, then sell it to some other person for a buck? The whole chain of custody is tainted. I should not be able to "own" these things no human created, at best, I should be able to rent it from

[vkou]

Exclusion rules of some kind are generally necessary for something that only one person can use at a time.

IP does not have that property.