That Intellectual Property, IP, does exist cannot reasonably be denied. Just as, similarly, circles, or cubes or rectangles exist cannot reasonably be denied. They exist as an abstraction from nature. They're a perfecting of the imperfect.
Nor should it be disputed that IP exists in a subject and does not have existence apart from a subject. And that the subject can be either the intellect, or a document as sign.
Whether or not Intellectual Private Property, IPP, likewise exists is on the other hand an entirely different matter.
If IPP does exist, it exists in the same manner as other private property exists, as a convention grounded in nature.
All private property while being natural is likewise subject to convention, and IPP would be even more so subject to convention because its nature even more so requires established societal regulation.
Private property is a convention in much the same manner as clothing fashion is a convention, or as spelling is a convention, or as music is a convention. A convention must conform within its nature, but within its nature it can vary within a limit.
The limit of spelling is that the signs must be capable of signifying. The limit of music is harmony, cultural memory and similar, The limit of clothing fashion is still more complex including cultural norm for modesty, appropriateness to social occasion, and so on.
The limit is set by nature, the variation within that set limit is according to prudence.
The concept that a man who improves a parcel of land can claim that land as his own is both natural and subject to convention. It's natural because it transforms the land from wilderness to human scale. It's subject to convention because not just any improved land can be claimed, but land that does not have a prior socially recognized claim, or is within the boundaries of the municipality and similar.
According to convention a tenant farmer could not claim ownership by improvement of the land, nor could a factory worker claim ownership by improvements to materials, because the land and materials have a prior recognized claim.
Intellectual private property is likewise claimed as owned by the same reasoning of improvement, and like other conventions is regulated according to established socially recognized limits.
For instance, society could limit an author's claim to ownership via copyright to compensation for his time and expenses. If an author has 2400 hours invested in a book, then his compensation could be limited to his receiving that number of hours back at a set wage per hour such as 2400 hours x $35 = $84,000. And after he received $84,000 plus incurred expenses his copyright would cease.
Like all private property, IPP is relative to the good of society as a whole. Men are not islands, we are by nature social living is society, and it's society which determines the convention of ownership of IPP. For instance, ownership of IPP is subject to prudential judgement of what is just compensation to a writer or an inventor in exchange for invested labor and other incurred expenses.
Unfortunately we have become a society which expects concrete and very simple answers, when what God has given us is a world of conventions where we must apply societal prudential judgement. What a living wage is is subject to prudence, so likewise is what is just compensation for those who invent or write.
This is similar to the issue of torture, where we as a society must act with prudence.
The error IPP deniers make is that they see the world in black and white, they see only the extremes. It's either all this way or all that way. But like most of life, truth is found in the mean between the extremes.
"That Intellectual Property, IP, does exist cannot reasonably be denied. Just as, similarly, circles, or cubes or rectangles exist cannot reasonably be denied. They exist as an abstraction from nature."
ReplyDeleteIP rights exist as an imposition by the state, entirely man-made. That something exists does not mean that it is right for it to exist.
"For instance, ownership of IPP is subject to prudential judgement of what is just compensation to a writer or an inventor in exchange for invested labor and other incurred expenses."
It is not and has never been the case that IP has been driven by a sense that the beneficiary is entitled to some form of compensation. The justification generally offered for IP, such as in the US constitution or the UK Statute of Anne, is that offering IP benefits the wider public by offering a greater incentive to create. There is no implication that the recipient of the handout is entitled to it.
Thank you for your comment.
DeleteMr Lockett writes : "IP rights exist as an imposition by the state, entirely man-made. That something exists does not mean that it is right for it to exist."
You're referring to IPP, where as mine is referring to IP. IP includes public domain property as well as private property.
________
Mr. Lockett writes : "It is not and has never been the case that IP has been driven by a sense that the beneficiary is entitled to some form of compensation..."
I an not in any manner even discussing US or UK law, let alone defending it. I am doing nothing more than attempting to understand if intellectual private property does exist, then how does it exist.
"IP includes public domain property as well as private property."
DeletePublic domain property is a contradiction in terms. Being public domain means that something is not subject to property rights.
"I am doing nothing more than attempting to understand if intellectual private property does exist, then how does it exist."
It exists because states create laws which bring it in to existence.
Mr. Lockett writes : "Being public domain means that something is not subject to property rights."
ReplyDeleteWhile property is used equivocally to signify private property, there is a difference between IP and IPP. Further, all property within the social environment is subject to the prudential judgement of society. Subject doesn't mean society should act, but that society can act if the need arises.
But be that as it may. I was attempting to make a distinction between property per se, and private property because the equivocation causes confusion.
__________
Mr. Lockett writes : "It exists because states create laws which bring it in to existence."
True. Intellectual property exists. Intellectual private property is a convention. All conventions are a creation of some type.