Implications of rejecting "intellectual property"
Nov 16, 2009, 18:04 (4 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Libervis)
[ Thanks to Daniel Memenode for
this link. ]
"What is "property"?
"A lot of people seem inclined to define property ownership as
whatever the government says it is. However what is most relevant
here is the common thread to most definitions which is "exclusive
control". Even when someone refers to such concepts as "shared
property", "public property" etc. they're still referring to some
kind of exclusive control or exclusive rights, only the idea is
that a group of people have control that excludes other groups.
"(Just for the record I don't agree such a thing is possible due
to a contradiction of exclusivity with the fact that a "group"
includes multiple people at the same time. I think only individual
ownership is possible. However, that's beyond the scope of this
article.)
"I have recently written more about property in more detail here
where I define ownership more precisely and establish the basis of
it in objective reality. The core of the definition, however, is
still exclusive control - that is, a stream of actions that
constitute it."
Complete Story
Related Stories:
- "Intellectual Property" a Violation of Real Property(Nov 10, 2009)
- Linux is not an OS(May 11, 2009)
- It is Alright to be Just a Linux User(Dec 16, 2008)
- The Market Loves Linux(Sep 12, 2008)
- Morals, Force and Freedomware(Jun 23, 2008)
- Is Public Domain Software Open-Source?(Mar 01, 2008)
- gOS: A Wake Up Call for Freedomware Marketing(Jan 08, 2008)
- Free Software That Helps You Take Control of Your Mobile Phone(Nov 02, 2007)
- The Role and Value of Truly Free Linux Distributions(Oct 23, 2007)
