4 comments

• 

  Tim Lee

  1 year ago

  Well put! I think you're basically right that one of the things that's going on is that copyright and patent debates help to accentuate out the limitations of naive theories of natural rights. If everyone agrees what rights we have, then it's easy to construct a logical framework of policy positions atop it. But if the nature and scope of peoples' rights are itself in dispute, then we have to look at our underlying reasons for supporting rights in the first place. And that inevitably leads people into at least consequentialist, if not utilitarian, discussions.
  reply
• 

  Don Marti

  1 year ago

  This is really another case where we need two words for "right". One for "natural right" or "human right" (right to free speech, right to keep and bear arms, right of privacy) and one for "rights within a system" (right of way, grazing right, IP right).
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  Don makes a very valid point, that we could use two words for "right".
  
  What has consistently bothered me about the concept of IP as a "right" is that when a product is "sold", the buyer (in theory) acquires a right to that product. However, the trend in IP is that property boundary has been to shift it to the point where the buyer of a product has virtually NO property right to that product under the auspices that the product is being "leased" or "licensed" rather than sold.
  
  While Solveig's post, as well as many others, acknowledge that the concept of property is fluid and consequently it is difficult to establish a clearly defined property right boundary, there is a shortage of posts that examine the IP property boundary question from the perspective of the buyer.
  
  The assertion by some that an IP creator can define the rights of how a buyer can use a product would seem, to me, to create an un-libertarian society where some have "rights" and others don't.
  reply
• 

  Timon

  1 year ago

  This is correct, but it is an illustration of why "IP" is a bad umbrella term, and the reason has to do with the level of abstraction at which a right is granted. For example, for IP skeptics, copyright discussions are almost purely utilitarian, and focus on transaction costs, social history, and legal practicalities. Copyright is granted at what we could call level-0 abstraction, where only specific words and images are covered, along with derivatives that depend precisely on the existence of some previous expressed form. Google any 7 word string in this comment and you probably not find any matches, since all written expression is mathematically unique. Patents are different, they range from the somewhat controversial, as in chemical compounds that are discreet and specific, to the most abstract ideas or notions that are protected by business and software patents. In the latter cases a "right" can't exist without certain categories of thought being declared property in some government office -- the kind of rights scheme that would obtain if story concepts were copyrightable. In those cases there is an obvious libertarian argument for the government staying out of it on philosophical grounds, while the opposing side tends to focus on the utilitarian necessity of incentivizing certain kinds of investment.
  
  Also, Solveig, you may find this phrase useful the next time you are looking for a pithy post ending.
  reply