Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government.
Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law).
People can and do make arguments against both IP and physical property, but the role of government the the same in both cases.
Unlike physical property, "intellectual property" doesn't exist by itself. The thing that exists, the product that it is that you ostensibly "own" that is protected by the government is the copyright, a soft of reified extension of ownership, which only has any value inasmuch as the government protects it.
In other words, intellectual property is only worth what the government says it is. It doesn't just hold the gun, in this case, it contrived the whole scenario in which a gun was necessary, and the presence of the gun is the only thing that prevents the "intellectual property" from spreading naturally, as information is wont to do.
You can argue whether the creation of this market is for the greater good, but the fact is that it's not in any way the same kind of market as evolves around physical goods, and is not regulated or enforced in the same kind of way.
I don't think it is any different for physical property. What is a pound of gold worth when you are defenseless and someone else has armed men willing to kill you.
Might makes right and owns all property is the default. Every situation that deviates from this is imposed by governments.
Why did you choose gold as an example? How about a sword? Claiming that physical and intellectual property are the same is reductionistic at best. The fact that both properties are protected by power doesn't mean that they are the same. Physical property is not copyable. Intellectual property is.
> Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above.
> I am saying their relation to the government is the same.
Then I don't have anything to object. But I suspect that the above points were clear in your comments. I don't think anybody here would object to the idea that physical property law and IP law have the same legal standing. What people object to are the principles of the IP law.
EDIT: Following up with more analysis of the parent's comments... Indeed the following was clearly stated [0]:
> Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government.
The following example to clarify the above statement muddies the water, though:
> Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law).
Physical property theft deprives the owner absolutely. Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense. Regardless, government is “right” to pursue enforcing both laws, because they are laws after all.
>Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense.
I think this is certainly settled in the legal sense. If an employee publishes source code to a product, or someone leaks a new movie, the courts dont have to debate if the owner has a legitimate grievance.
People can debate hypothetical alternatives to IP and their implications, but the status quo is clear. If you are using "questionable" not to mean uncertain, but in the literal sense, then sure (anything is questionable).
> If an employee publishes source code to a product
What if that product has been obsolete for a long time? It is possible that there is no harm in an IP infringement case, whereas in property theft the amount of harm incurred is the property itself at the minimum. The amount of harm, if any, is questioned by the court.
I am not at all opposed to IP reform as a general concept. There are a million corner cases, and I agree many of them should be re-examined. For example, I think the criteria for fundamental software patents should be set more conservatively.
Another consideration is use it or lose it provisions, although I am much more on the fence on this. It would essentially destroy patents which have multiple embodiments, but might make sense for literature.
I am mostly responding to the idea of tossing IP in general, Which I think is misguided. There are countless ways in which this could cause great harm and essentially gut creators in favor of manufacturers or marketers
There is no deviation. It is still the might of governments (through police/military) imposed on all with less might, in service of those keeping them in power.
as hug correctly points out, you have accidentally made a circular argument; without the regulatory regime, the thing that 'ip theft' deprives the owner of doesn't exist in the first place
so the role of government is quite different in the two cases: it creates 'intellectual property', in the sense of 'what the owner is deprived of by so-called ip theft', while physical property exists in its own right
if we instead consider 'intellectual property' in the sense of 'literature, knowledge, or designs,' which the owner is not deprived of by 'ip theft', the role of the government becomes precisely opposite to its role with respect to physical property
taking a car as a paradigmatic example of physical property, private ownership rights (whether protected by the state, by moral suasion, by mob violence, or by any other means) protect your car from being stolen so that you can use it; without any security of ownership, people would just get in the nearest car and drive off. you could never be sure a car would be available for you to use, and this would eliminate any private incentive to build cars or to repair or maintain them, resulting in rapid material impoverishment; soon you would have no cars except perhaps for taxpayer-funded public transit. so private ownership rights serve to enable access to cars and similar material goods
literature, knowledge, and designs do not need to be repaired and maintained, especially now that we can use bittorrent instead of linotypes to reproduce them, and if someone else gets in my novel and drives off with it, why, i can still read it as easily as before. the involvement of the state in this case only serves to endanger access to literature, knowledge, and designs—precisely the opposite of the case with physical property
ultimately, intellectual property is completely incompatible with the security of physical property: the trade-secret code of your car's ecu deprives you of some degree of security in your use of that car
people do sometimes argue that an analogous situation obtains with respect to literature, knowledge, and designs: intellectual enclosure through so-called 'intellectual property law' enables creators to require payment from consumers, creating an incentive to write literature, discover knowledge, and create designs. perhaps there is some truth to this, but that is not the only incentive, and evidently it is not a necessary one, given that academic authors (who discover most fundamental knowledge) generally do not receive royalties, and free software reliably leads the software industry in innovation, having almost entirely displaced proprietary software as the basis of the world information infrastructure over the last 30 years
Physical property rights, which I strongly support, are not a law of nature. lions and tigers dont have property rights. They are a concept, but one is no more natural than another. matter exists, knowledge exists. exclusive monopoly to one or the other is no different.
RE Cars:
I think the analogy is apt, but you you ignore the time an effort that goes into creating one. Who would build or buy a car if someone could just get in and drive off.
The same is true for literature. Why spend years writing a book, play, or song, if the first person that hears or sees it reproduces it for everyone and you recieve nothing.
It is just like spending time building a car for someone to drive off with it.
Your argument focuses on the user, not the creator.
>and if someone else gets in my novel and drives off with it, why, i can still read it as easily as before.
Thats all an well for the consumer. The car thief doesnt care either, as long as there are cars to steal and idiots buying cars.
You might argue that peope will create literature out of innate desire,as an argument how screwing them over wont impact incetives, but how is that different from physical property.
You think someone has a deep drive to write the next great ammercian novel, but not grow food, so it is ok to steal one, but not the other. What if people want to grow food, does that then justify stealing it?
I just think it is extremely hypocritical to dismiss IP creators while protecting the car makers or food growers.
IF someone wants to create IP for free, grow food for free, or build cars for free- They CAN!
> What if people want to grow food, does that then justify stealing it?
Maybe it does justify, if stealing doesn't mean depriving the owner of the food.
> IF someone wants to create IP for free, grow food for free, or build cars for free- They CAN!
I want to create IP for free, but I don't have a surplus of time to create it. IP holders deprive me of the surplus, because it's going to reduce the value of their “property” if I create IP for free.
>Maybe it does justify, if stealing doesn't mean depriving the owner of the food.
They have less food than before you took it, how is that not depriving them?
Who authors a book so that they can read it themselves? Is that a reasonable model of the world?
>I want to create IP for free, but I don't have a surplus of time to create it. IP holders deprive me of the surplus, because it's going to reduce the value of their “property” if I create IP for free.
How are they taking your surplus time? Nobody is forcing you to buy IP?
> They have less food than before you took it, how is that not depriving them?
That's my point. You keep conflating copyright infringement and stealing. Conceptually and legally, they are different.
> How are they taking your surplus time? Nobody is forcing you to buy IP?
In order to earn a living, I have to give away my rights to the IP that I produce. I don't have any time left to produce IP that I could give away freely. My point is that it's not as simple as claiming that people can produce IP for free, given the status quo. IP law makes it more difficult for people to give away IP for free.
> In order to earn a living, I have to give away my rights to the IP that I produce
You do not have to give away your rights to the IP that you produce. Which is an especially odd assertion to make as you insist that IP laws somehow make it more difficult to give a work away for free, as opposed to an alternative would require they be given away for free. One affords one the freedom to give away something for free if they so choose, the other requires it regardless of the author's interest.
> you ignore the time [and] effort that goes into creating [a car]
given that about 150 words of my comment, more than a third of the total, was about this and its analogues in the world of intellectual work, i can only conclude that you didn't even spend the minute and a half required to read my comment, much less take the time to understand the ideas i was expressing. consequently there is no point in replying further to you
> Physical property rights, which I strongly support, are not a law of nature. lions and tigers dont have property rights. They are a concept, but one is no more natural than another.
Then why have physical property rights existed for the entirety of recorded history while intellectual property rights are a very modern invention?
