2 or more people wanting to use given a sound recording do not as copying has a marginal cost approaching zero. My use can be entirely separate from yours and we may not even know of the existence of the other. Land, for example, cannot be copied with a very small marginal cost, or indeed, at all.
These things are very different and those differences need to be taken into account in any regulation surrounding their property rights. I express no opinion here of what correct regulation for property rights for these two vastly different asset classes should be. Make your case for opposing property rights by all means.
Owning a physical thing and "owning" information is fundamentally different. Information can be copied, spread, redistributed without taking it away from someone.
If you take land from someone they can no longer use it, if you copy information from someone they still have it themselves. You cannot build two houses onto the same place in the same property.
Ownership is designed so that we can say who is allowed to use things with naturally exclusive use.
Copyright is designed to make the use of naturally unlimited and reusable information exclusive.
This is also why we have the word "infringement" and why we should not be using the word "theft" in these contexts.
To put this idea another way:
Say Jane has an iObject. She uses it everyday.
Bob takes the iObject. Jane now does not have her iObject, and cannot use it everyday.
The iObject has value, and it's expensive to obtain another one. Jane must spend to obtain another iObject, assuming one is available for purchase.
This is theft, and the key legal concept here is someone being deprived of their property.
Joe has made a song. Joe has granted distribution rights to Larry, who collects money for people obtaining copies of the song. Joe makes money from Larry, who also makes money doing all these things.
Ann gets a copy of Joe's song from her friend Jose. Larry and Joe did not get any revenue from Ann.
This is infringement.
Notably, Joe still has his song. Larry still has his right of distribution he obtained from Joe. They are not denied their property.
Essentially Anne and Jose did, or experienced something they were not supposed to.
Also of note, Larry and Joe could still sell Ann a copy of the song! Ann could further promote Joe's song to others in various ways, legally.
There are some additional considerations.
Part of the value in Joe's work is context. People who know Joe, understand his work, identify with Joe in ways that make using Joe's work important to them all represent value. Larry helps add value to Joe's work by doing the other work associated with distribution, and that's advertising, and other efforts that generally promote the work and add context.
Unlike theft, there can actually be value created as a result of infringement!
In the case of theft, the value of the iObject to Jane is associated with owning and using the iObject, and said use could be just looking at the thing, or it could be the iObject enables Jane to do things she would not normally be able to do, whatever. When theft happens, Jane no longer has that value and or whatever was possible when she did have her iObject.
Infringement is weird.
Ann gets a copy of Joe's work from Jose. Prior to that, Ann has no clue about Joe, his work, that it's available. There is some chance Ann would have stumbled on all that due to Larry being good at what he does, but there is also a great chance Joe remains undiscovered by Ann, who would never spend any money that Joe and Larry would receive.
However, Jose promoting the work to Ann changes all of that!
Now Ann knows who Joe is, has context (Jose) and now could spend money for any number of reasons.
Joe and Larry received value from Jose's act of infringement (copy, distribute), and Ann added to that by her other act of infringement. (use)
And that's it, just really want to underscore the difference.
I've long held the view we won't really get workable laws on all this, until we discuss it using the proper words. The nuances are subtle, but they matter! As does the law and its impact on our lives and opportunities.
The traditional way out is to marry a rich commoner who wants their children to be titled.
We need many layers of safety nets and stabilizing forces, because every layer is prone to different types of failure. There is a natural and desirable support structure of individial -> family -> community -> state -> humanity that allows society and individuals to survive and thrive through changing circumstances. Too much reliance on any one layer, especially the state, is a recipe for fragility or tyranny.
When every individual has an emergency fund, every family has a nest egg, every community pulls together in time of need, and every state provides a safety net of last resort, we can weather any storm.
well personal ownership generally gets passed to your kids when you die and then to their kids etc. so as long as your descendants do not sell it, that lasts forever.
Copyrights might last past you to your kids but probably not to your kids' kids and further.
We need a land value tax. The wealthy shouldn't be able to extort rent from the rest of society for having bought up a finite resource that gets its value from that same society. Land speculation is a scourge that drives people into poverty and homelessness while good land goes sits idle.
IP and physical property are not fungible, so I find this argument slightly disingenuous. They operate under different physical laws.
What actually happens when my car goes back into public domain? Is it just fair game for everyone? Does someone from the govmt come to pick it up? Would there be some kind of library-esque system for all public domain'd property?
You haven't given your criteria of credibility, so why should we listen to you?
> If IP is effectively a public good held on a short lease, so is all property.
This is so malformed you're not even wrong.
There are significant differences!
The primary one being for theft to be a part of the discussion there must also be someone who is denied property.
A copy does not deny anyone property. And the word for that is infringement.
(whether it's OK to do is another discussion, and an important one that I'm not speaking to right now, just the basic difference)
I've yet to hear any credible argument - one that doesn't reduce to entitlement and wishful thinking - for distinguishing between these asset classes.
If IP is effectively a public good held on a short lease, so is all property. If it isn't, it isn't. Any argument you can make about the benefits of putting intellectual work in the public domain, you can also make - more convincingly - about land and any other productive resource.