We are all accustomed to hearing from the
IP sceptics that "IP isn't like real property." The argument
is that, unlike real property, when you access a piece of intellectual
property, you do not deprive the owner of the use of the property. The
implication is that you have no right to deprive someone else of the use
of your property if it doesn't inconvenience you.
The problem with this argument is that it is based on a false premise. It is based on the premise that "use" is the definition of property. But use is NOT the definition of property. Ownership is the definition of property, and ownership implies exclusion, not use. When you own something, it is frankly irrelevant whether or not you are using it. Your ownership does not demand that you use it, but it excludes others from using it. Ownership is not use, but control.
It follows from control and exclusion that you have the right to insist on the opportunity to derive revenue from your property.
But what's really interesting to me is this: The fact that many different people can obtain the use of your property at the same time suggests that IP is economically SUPERIOR to "real" property, not inferior to it. IP can be leveraged to a much greater degree, economically, than can real property.
We have to stop granting to IP sceptics that IP is somehow inferior to real property, because its use does not deprive the owner of use. Ownership is about control and exclusion, not use.
The problem with this argument is that it is based on a false premise. It is based on the premise that "use" is the definition of property. But use is NOT the definition of property. Ownership is the definition of property, and ownership implies exclusion, not use. When you own something, it is frankly irrelevant whether or not you are using it. Your ownership does not demand that you use it, but it excludes others from using it. Ownership is not use, but control.
It follows from control and exclusion that you have the right to insist on the opportunity to derive revenue from your property.
But what's really interesting to me is this: The fact that many different people can obtain the use of your property at the same time suggests that IP is economically SUPERIOR to "real" property, not inferior to it. IP can be leveraged to a much greater degree, economically, than can real property.
We have to stop granting to IP sceptics that IP is somehow inferior to real property, because its use does not deprive the owner of use. Ownership is about control and exclusion, not use.