[dvfjsdhgfv]

I remember one RMS lecture that made me think. He pointed out that the so-called "intellectual property" doesn't really exist. What exists are certain laws, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and so on. Each of these recognizes the benefit to society of temporary restriction of freedom of others to use the ideas that were invented/transmitted by others.

[scotty79]

> Each of these recognizes the benefit to society of temporary restriction of freedom of others to use the ideas that were invented/transmitted by others.

I'd say that in the context of intellectual property the correct word would be 'postulates' not 'recognizes'.

Benefit to society is hard to proove or measure. It's implied. What's very easy to measure is a benefit to minority of rich people at the expense of the society.

[Trombone12]

You can just drop "intellectual" and there will be no fundamental change to the argument, it's only the name of the laws defining "property" that change.

[MacsHeadroom]

No, you can't. Property exists. You can replace the word intellectual with "personal," "private," "public," etc. But removing it does not work. Property is not a legal fiction. Who the property belongs to is.

[tbrownaw]

You seem to be missing that my laptop existing is an objective fact rather than a logical argument.

[dotancohen]

Yes, but the association of that laptop with yourself as an owner is an abstract idea. Many mammals do not have such ideas of ownership as an exclusive right, though many will defend territory, mates, and offspring.

[jonhohle]

It can not be understated how foundational exclusive property rights are to modern society and technological advancement. Since at least the Magna Carta it’s considered a human right. The US Declaration of Independence almost enumerated property as an inalienable right in place of the pursuit of happiness.

How could I have forgotten: the idea of personal property is also essential to Jewish law, predating the Magna Carta by another 2,000 years. That’s at least 3,000 years of at least a portion of humans placing value on private property.

[andrewflnr]

Yes, but that's true of IP, too. And the importance of property laws in general doesn't make them less of an abstraction.

[jonhohle]

I updated my earlier comment to point out much earlier property laws. As best I can tell, copyright laws are around 500 years old, and about 230 in America. They were always written to give the creator a limited monopoly, unlike property, which is in perpetuity. Personal property is typically not considered to have the wide public value or cultural impact that ideas have.

[seanp2k2]

I’d highly recommend reading the 1840 banger * What Is Property? or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government* by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon of Property is theft! fame.