Defining Property - Paul Graham

[Glen Newton]

Paul Graham has an interesting angle on property and intellectual property.
 His analogy comparing scented air sold on the moonbase to an old
Japanese story about charging for the smell of rice from a street
stall is particularly compelling:
 http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html

Paul Graham is a highly regarded computer scientist (esp in AI and
LISP) and also a very successful business person / venture capitalist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_programmer%29

-Glen Newton

--
-
http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/
-

[David Eaves]

This is great. Thank you Glen, always been a fan of Paul Graham's thinking.


On 12-03-29 6:26 AM, Glen Newton wrote:

> Paul Graham has an interesting angle on property and intellectual property.
>   His analogy comparing scented air sold on the moonbase to an old
> Japanese story about charging for the smell of rice from a street
> stall is particularly compelling:
>   http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html
>
> Paul Graham is a highly regarded computer scientist (esp in AI and
> LISP) and also a very successful business person / venture capitalist:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_%28computer_programmer%29
>
> -Glen Newton
>

[Karl Dubost]

Le 29 mars 2012 à 09:26, Glen Newton a écrit :
> stall is particularly compelling:
> http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html

What creates property is a fence for blocking access.
It doesn't exist by its own.

The moon example is working because the moon base is a sealed environment (a fence). You are out or in. The economy of the books are based on a text fenced by a physical object (paper). As long as it is hard to reproduce, to distribute, the value is kept in this paper object (the fence). Once you create a way to distribute, copy at very low cost, accessible to anyone, the fence is meaningless, and then the value is falling apart. Hence industry trying to create new fences with DRM.



--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Russell McOrmond]

On 12-03-29 09:43 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> then the value is falling apart. Hence industry trying to create new
> fences with DRM.

   It's critical to remember what the fence is around.  There are two
fences with common "DRM" systems: one around content (such that it can
only interoperate with authorized devices), and one around the devices
(to lock the owner out).

   While we can debate about whether the first fence is legitimate (I
believe it is not), it should be clear that putting a fence around
something you don't own in order to deny the owner access should be
illegal.  This is a clear infringement of the property rights of
technology owners that is at least as bad as (and I believe far worse
than) infringements of copyright  http://c11.ca/brief

   This is why DRM is so much more controversial in the technical
community than outside: non-technical people are easily distracted by
the fence around the content, when 99%+ of the problems with "DRM" come
from the fences around our devices.  Nearly all the debate in the
Canadian House of Commons and C-11 committee were about "technological
measures" applied to content

Technological measures in a land of myth and a time of magic
http://c11.ca/5448


   The industry people should be paying closest attention to is not the
content industry, but a specific subset of device manufacturers (Apple,
Sony and Microsoft being the worst at the moment) who want to deny IT
property rights from citizens.

   Legalizing and legally protecting non-owner TPMs is really a
dishonest "rob Peter to pay Paul" policy, except that even while
technology owners are having their rights commercially infringed it
still doesn't pay copyright holders.



Note: I'm uncomfortable with http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html as
he appears to accept the common misconception about what aspect of
copyright is property.

Since the temporary government granted monopoly on the list of
activities that defines copyright can be bought and sold, the copyright
is itself a form of property.

The activities that copyright restricts aren't the property, or aren't
the same property in the case of tangible fixations made (IE: selling a
painting doesn't transfer ownership of the copyright, and selling the
copyright doesn't transfer ownership of the painting).

And critically, copyright infringement is not "theft" http://c11.ca/5395

Any conversation that includes people with this misunderstanding will
quickly devolve http://c11.ca/Jefferson_Debate

--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://l.c11.ca/ict

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"

[Kent Mewhort]

For anyone interested in these distinctions, I'd encourage you to take a look at some great theorists that have written a lot already.  There's volumes of philosophical and academic theory on the definition of property, and why we grant property rights (which, as the fence analogies alludes to, can roughly be described as exclusionary rights that attach to a thing).  One branch of property theory finds its roots in John Locke's famous idea of "just deserts" for labour invested. With a slightly different angle, Radin, taking inspiration from Hegel, makes the argument that property merits exclusionary legal protections because of its link to a person's identity, whereby it enables human flourishing.

The other core branch of property theory, rooted in Mill's and Bentham's utilitarianism, posits that these legal protections are necessary for the promotion of beneficial social goals.

You see allusions to both of these branches of property theory in key Canadian copyright decisions such as CCH: I think it's well-established now that our copyright enjoys at least "property-like" protections in large part due to certain similarities to real property rights.

However, I think there's still a very important battle of theory and principles to be waged on the line between intellectual property and other property rights.  I.P. comes under federal jurisdiction, whereas property rights come under provincial.  To the extent federal legislative provisions in the Copyright Act are not "pith and substance" a part of the I.P. regime, or where they intrude into the exclusive core of provincial jurisdiction, they're unconstitutional (and of no force and effect)!.

There's certainly an compelling argument to be made that DRM protections may, in many cases, extend beyond copyright into provincial jurisdiction...

Kent

On 29/03/12 12:21 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote:

On 12-03-29 09:43 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:

then the value is falling apart. Hence industry trying to create new
fences with DRM.

  It's critical to remember what the fence is around.  There are two fences with common "DRM" systems: one around content (such that it can only interoperate with authorized devices), and one around the devices (to lock the owner out).

  While we can debate about whether the first fence is legitimate (I believe it is not), it should be clear that putting a fence around something you don't own in order to deny the owner access should be illegal.  This is a clear infringement of the property rights of technology owners that is at least as bad as (and I believe far worse than) infringements of copyright  http://c11.ca/brief

  This is why DRM is so much more controversial in the technical community than outside: non-technical people are easily distracted by the fence around the content, when 99%+ of the problems with "DRM" come from the fences around our devices.  Nearly all the debate in the Canadian House of Commons and C-11 committee were about "technological measures" applied to content

Technological measures in a land of myth and a time of magic
http://c11.ca/5448


  The industry people should be paying closest attention to is not the content industry, but a specific subset of device manufacturers (Apple, Sony and Microsoft being the worst at the moment) who want to deny IT property rights from citizens.

  Legalizing and legally protecting non-owner TPMs is really a dishonest "rob Peter to pay Paul" policy, except that even while technology owners are having their rights commercially infringed it still doesn't pay copyright holders.



Note: I'm uncomfortable with http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html as he appears to accept the common misconception about what aspect of copyright is property.

Since the temporary government granted monopoly on the list of activities that defines copyright can be bought and sold, the copyright is itself a form of property.

The activities that copyright restricts aren't the property, or aren't the same property in the case of tangible fixations made (IE: selling a painting doesn't transfer ownership of the copyright, and selling the copyright doesn't transfer ownership of the painting).

And critically, copyright infringement is not "theft" http://c11.ca/5395

Any conversation that includes people with this misunderstanding will quickly devolve http://c11.ca/Jefferson_Debate

[Karl Dubost]

Le 29 mars 2012 à 12:21, Russell McOrmond a écrit :
>  While we can debate about whether the first fence is legitimate (I believe it is not)

me too, but I tried to avoid to taint too much it with my own opinions.
IP is a nonsense for me, but I understand some people have a very different opinion. ;)

--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Russell McOrmond]

On 12-03-29 03:56 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> Le 29 mars 2012 à 12:21, Russell McOrmond a écrit :
>>   While we can debate about whether the first fence is legitimate (I believe it is not)
>
> me too, but I tried to avoid to taint too much it with my own opinions.
> IP is a nonsense for me, but I understand some people have a very different opinion. ;)

   Copyright and patents aren't nonsense to me, but the confusing term
"Intellectual Property" is.  I've seen so many conversations go south
when people mix up these very different areas of law, and talk about
tangible property, copyright/patents (intended to incentivise
creativity/innovation) and trademark/anti-counterfeiting (intended as
consumer protection) as if they were related far more than they are.

   My comment about the fence around copyrighted content is different
than that, and doesn't rely on any specific level of respect (or not) of
copyright.

   Most commonly these fences aren't used to deny access, but abused to
condition access on the use of specific brands of access technology.
Copyright owners should have no more say over what brands of digital
technology I purchase than what brands of eyeglasses I wear.  This abuse
is not a protection of the rights of copyright holders, but an
infringement of the rights of audiences.


   As to not sharing your opinions: clearly those who have very extreme
views that suggest copyright infringement is "theft" and that they
should have the legally protected right to build business models on top
of infringing other peoples rights aren't silent.  I think those of us
who better respect a wider variety of rights and interests should never
be silent.

--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://l.c11.ca/ict

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"

[Karl Dubost]

Le 30 mars 2012 à 09:27, Russell McOrmond a écrit :
>  As to not sharing your opinions: clearly those who have very extreme views that suggest copyright infringement is "theft"

Note I didn't say that :)
My opinion is that copyright, patents are choices for operating the society, the innovation and the creation (that I do not agree with.) I prefer a different model. There's nothing extreme about that.

> I think those of us who better respect a wider variety of rights and interests should never be silent.

Agreed. This goes both ways. :)
Actions can be made to encourage more people to use permissive licenses for [Work] which enable reuse. Things such as CC-BY or CC0 or even public domain. Though Public Domain is a bit more complex, because it is not possible everywhere (in France for example).


--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/