[slondr]

> There may be many Teslas, but there is only one of your Tesla.

That isn’t a “natural” concept, it’s still a legal one.

[bell-cot]

NOT true at all. Consider (say) a particular banana, in the hand of a particular hungry gorilla. That banana is the property of that gorilla. This concept of property is quite natural, and baked into the instincts and behaviors of animals far, far more simple than even the bottom end of the primates.

Vs. even comprehending the concepts of copyright and intellectual property requires a very modern human education and worldview.

(But consider how many $millions are paid to a great many lawyers, contingent on their managing to convince a great many people that those two very different concepts of "property" are the same, and a certain famous quote by Upton Sinclair.)

[andrekandre]

> That banana is the property of that gorilla.

is there a semantically relevant distinction between property and possession?

i might be inclined to have said "the gorilla is in possession of the banana" but im not sure about "property of"...?

[tender_euler]

I would say that banana is the property of the tree the gorilla "stole" it from.

And I don't think animals see this banana as "property of the gorilla" as you suggested.

I think they see it as "if I try to take this banana from that gorilla, I will get slapped"

[simondotau]

The bananas weren’t stolen, they were sold to the gorilla in return for seed distribution services. The tree wants the gorilla to distribute the banana seed within a fertiliser package (poop) some distance away. And the gorilla wants calories, which the tree can endlessly produce using solar power. It’s a fair trade.

[bell-cot]

Didn't the banana plant (not a tree, technically) produce that banana using nutrients stolen from the soil, carbon dioxide stolen from the air, energy stolen from the sun, etc.?

[midoridensha]

Exactly: the whole system is based on theft, and should be stopped.