[UFO Chicago] Intellectual property

[Larry Garfield]

"Neil R. Ormos" wrote:

> Third, the notion that "ideas" or creative output are
> somehow fundamentally inconsistent with the application of
> property concepts is simply wrong.  There are many
> reasonable analogies that can be drawn between intellectual
> property and real/personal property.  For example, the
> essence of a possessory interest in property is the right to
> exclude others (at least in most common-law jurisdictions).
> For real estate and chattel property, the relevant exclusion
> is presence and use.  For intellectual property, the
> relevant exclusion may well be commercialization.

Actually, it's a very reasonable and accurate distinction to make, for
the simple reason stated in the quote that began this conversation.

If I were to dispose of (the general term meaning "to use" when using
pedantic philosophical language) your property, you no longer have it,
or have it in the same form.  If I borrow it to use it and then return
it (e.g., I borrow your screwdriver), then for a given period of time
you do not have it, and afterwards I do not have it.  It is finite.

Now compare that to information.  During the entire time in which I make
use of the idea that I got from you (by whatever means), you still have
that idea and full access and ability to dispose of it as well.  In
fact, you can dispose of it twice, or thrice, or a hundred times.  It is
not finite.

Most philosophers, including those upon whose ideas this nation's
founding fathers drew when drafting the Constitution and other early
legal documents, speak in terms of property as something which is
finite, and laws to protect property being to to keep me from depriving
you of said finite material.  I cannot deprive you of an idea, unless
someone invents a brain-scrambling device.  At best, I may deprive you
of possible, future, imaginary, potential other material (green slips of
paper) that you could possibly obtain in the future, but I have not
deprived you of the idea itself.  

Information is neither matter nor energy in that it does not obey the
Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.  Therefore, to claim that it
is innately subject to the same laws (physical or legal) as matter or
energy is asinine.  We may choose to pretend that it is to make the
writing of law easier, or perhaps in a vain attempt to protect ephemeral
future possibilities (also known as derivative works), but understand
that such treatment is not natural, and is in fact contrary to the
fundamental nature of information.

(That is the scientific version of "information wants to be free" :-)

And if for intellectual property the relevant exclusion may be
commercialization, then by definition non-commercial use (e.g., use
without selling for profit) would be exempt from the property
restriction.

> > Using terms like "property" and "stealing" are colorful
> > metaphors that distract discussion away from the issues at
> > hand.
> 
> I suppose the last resort of the misinformed pedant is to
> criticize an earlier post by reciting an 89-year-old
> dictionary definition of a word that was never used in the
> earlier post, and then to accuse the original poster of
> distracting "discussion away from the issues at hand".  What
> an amazing feat of hypocrisy!

I suppose the last resort of the self-important pedant is to criticize
and earlier post by reciting an equally old dictionary definition from
the same source and then to accuse the original poster of being "simply
wrong".  What an amazing feat of hypocrisy!

But then, having seen and performed both of those many times in my life,
I suppose I am no position to pass judgment.

-- 
Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
lgarfiel@students.depaul.edu	ICQ: 6817012

-- "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you." :-)