"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0c8644$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:43:08 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a0c391a$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:38 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >
> >> >> IOW, it's not property, it's a right.
> >
> >> > Why the term "intellectual property"?
> >
> >> Marketing + Lawyering = occasionally stupid terminology
> >
> > I don't think it's stupid at all,
>
> You're entitled to that view.  I wasn't calling the concept stupid, I was
> calling the name stupid.  Big difference.
>
> > unless you consider "ownership" as a
> > whole stupid. You do own the copyright (or patent or trademark... etc ),
> > whichever way you look at it, so it's natural to speak of those things
> > as "property".
>
> I don't think so.  It's a right (ie, the right to control), not an object
> or thing.
>
> > "Property" vs "right" is a false dichotomy - they are not in the same
> > class:
>
> Precisely.  But in the above quoted section (up two), you conflate the
> two concepts.
>
> > material or immaterial, that you cannot own). When you violate that
> > right of an owner, it's theft.

> No.  Violation of rights is not theft,

Unless the right happens to be ownership right. Then violation of that right
is theft.

> violation of rights is a violation of rights.

Just as a fruit is a fruit and a vegetable is a vegetable. But "fruit is a
fruit" 1) doesn't add any information 2) does not preclude the statement
"apple is a fruit".

Violation of rights may be other things too, depending on what is violated.
If the right to free speech is violated, that's censorship, if the right to
life is violated, that's murder, if the right of ownership is violated,
that's theft.

> Theft is very explicitly "the act of stealing;

What is theft? Stealing. What is stealing? Theft. Dictionaries are not
useful to explain the why.

> the wrongful

It's not wrongful *unless* ownership is a right. Within a tribe where
individuals cannot own things, for instance, there can be no legal or social
definition of theft. "Wrongfullness" depends on whether the right to own is
in the books (or customs) or not.

> taking and carrying away of the *personal goods or property* of another;
> larceny."

Intellectual property is, well, property.

> The concept behind "intellectual property" is that an idea has value.
> But ideas cannot be "stolen" because they are not physical.  The plans
> that come from an idea can be stolen, duplicated, whatever.  But the idea
> itself cannot be.
>
> This is why copyright/patent law has so many problems - the idea that you
> can prevent someone from having the same idea you did even though that
> conceptualization is completely independent is wrong IMHO.

You may of course disagree. But so long as the law states that people can
own copyrights, patents or trademarsks, they are property.

I might claim cars are not property, since I believe they should not be
owned. Well, in a different time, at a different place, maybe cars will
indeed be not property. But with current laws, they are, and they sure can
be stolen.

> > The rest is splitting hairs, and
> > existance of other narrower terminology (i.e. software piracy) doesn't
> > mean it's not theft. Otherwise, someone else can argue that carjacking
> > is not theft either.

> No, you can't argue that, because a car is a physical object.  If I own a
> car and someone takes it from me without my permission (by force or not),
> then it's theft - because I don't still have the car.  End of story.

I claim that you didn't own the car in the first place, it was improper of
the law to grant you ownership. Thus it's not theft. Absurd? Well, you are
making the same claim.

Physicality doesn't matter. It's not godgiven that all physical things, and
only physical things can be owned - in fact, both statements are false.
People make up the rules.

Post a reply to this message