Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Natural law

A natural law, as opposed to a social law, is simply one derived from an observation, or at least a belief, about the nature of something. A good example was the argument made by Thomas Jefferson in his 1813 letter Isaac McPherson that ideas are not by nature property:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Jefferson recognized, however, that a right in social law to what we now call "intellectual property" might be justified on utilitarian grounds. Nevertheless, the natural law regarding ideas is that they may not be owned.


To the extent that the law tries to be realistic and take the nature of things into account, all laws are more or less "natural" even if not purely so. What makes pure natural law so problematic in practice is that in most cases the argument is derived from nothing so simple as the nature of ideas but from human nature -- which is complex, not well understood and varies a bit from one human individual to the next making generalization difficult. Social law, derived from politics, fills the gaps in our understandings although it sometimes also represents unwise attempts to deny the nature of things.

The advantage of natural law, where it can be correctly determined, is that it is by definition realistic insofar as not being in conflict with nature. It is less prone than social law to fail due to unanticipated problems when tested against reality. Patent and copyright law is a mess -- full of arbitrary distinctions and determinations and endless disputes and controversies. This is the natural result of being so artificial.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

A defence of copyright

I would like to take a moment to credit Jamie Zawinski with a cogent argument that acknowledges the fallacy of so-called "intellectual property" yet plausibly justifies copyright as a matter of contract law. It would have to be one of those "social contracts" that as individuals we don't get to consent to or opt out of but with reference to the social nature of human beings it may fit within a reasonable interpretation of natural law. I'll be thinking about it.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

I really don't like "intellectual property"

I see I have been neglecting my blog recently, although you may have seen my frequent comment postings at the Washington Post and occasional comment postings elsewhere.

On this occasion, I would like to re-iterate a point I have stressed in the past by repeating here a comment I just posted to a Raw Story item titled "US report urges action against BitTorrent sites":
Many people seem unaware that the concept of "intellectual property" is historically quite new, basically nonexistent before the 18th century. Somehow, art and science managed to progress quite well for centuries without it. In fact, copyrights and patents are a special interest benefit, a grant of legal monopoly, richly rewarding many individuals and corporations beyond what a free market would allow. To whatever extent such arrangements support innovation beyond that which would normally occur in their absence we can be sure that some resources from the finite supply of resources are being diverted from uses that free markets would deem to be of greater value.
I really don't like "intellectual property".

Incidentally, I have used a BitTorrent site myself on one occasion. After replacing my old PC I tried to load the game "Baldur's Gate" from my legally owned disks to the new machine without success, apparently due to a scratch in one of the disks. I downloaded a "pirate" copy as a replacement. As it happens, that didn't work either, apparently due to the new machine using a newer version of the Windows operating system. I do miss that old game, but I have moved on to the MMORPG play in World of Warcraft.