Re:Negotiators Lose Last Chance to Salvage the TPP by Caving...
by icebraining on Thursday February 05, 2015 @11:59AM
(#9004309)
He simply asserts that the focus should be on scarcity rather than creation
No, he doesn't. He says the focus should be on scarcity because if it's on creation, and if it's applied in a consistent and non-arbitrary way, life becomes impossible, as "as every conceivable use of property, every single action, would be bound to infringe upon one of the millions of past, accreted IP rights."
He actually has almost six pages explaining the problem with the creation-based IP rights, so saying that he "simply asserts" is just incorrect.
His scarcity argument is itself flawed: he focuses on the fact that copies of an intangible good are not scarce, and glosses over the fact the originals definitely are.
That's because the scarcity of the originals is irrelevant to whether the copies should be considered property, any more than it makes me the owner of the light that comes from my light bulb.
The scarcity of the originals is only relevant vis-a-vis the use of the originals.
No, he doesn't. He says the focus should be on scarcity because if it's on creation, and if it's applied in a consistent and non-arbitrary way, life becomes impossible, as "as every conceivable use of property, every single action, would be bound to infringe upon one of the millions of past, accreted IP rights."
He actually has almost six pages explaining the problem with the creation-based IP rights, so saying that he "simply asserts" is just incorrect.
His scarcity argument is itself flawed: he focuses on the fact that copies of an intangible good are not scarce, and glosses over the fact the originals definitely are.
That's because the scarcity of the originals is irrelevant to whether the copies should be considered property, any more than it makes me the owner of the light that comes from my light bulb.
The scarcity of the originals is only relevant vis-a-vis the use of the originals.