Lone Wolf sends Cease & Desist letters to anyone using the term 'Army Builder'

[czak]

You are describing the difference between real property and personal property (chattels) not the difference between property and not-property.

The best way to think about property is as a bundle of rights and obligations not as an actual object.

What you describe for real property isn't necessarily true in all cases either: Going through your points one by one:
Property doesn't have to be registered - In some jurisdictions transfers of ownership and ownership of real property does have to be registered. This type of system is known as a Torrens System and is used in Australia, New Zealand, Alberta, and British Columbia just off the top of my head.

Property doesn't have a term after which it expires:
Leasehold property, or life estates do have a time after which ownership expires.
Even freehold property is subject to escheat as well.

Some IPR aren't fully transferable, unlike property:
Hmm nothing off the top of my head except the corner case of aboriginal title in canada.


While there are easements, rights of way and such with realty, property ownership in general is a much more absolute right than ownership of most IPR:

In actual fact, in most common law jurisdictions real property is not owned absolutely - the state always owns the underlying title - This is known as fee simple ownership. This is what gives the state rights like taxation, escheat etc..

Also if you look at a land grant the state almost always reserves certain rights (mineral rights and oil and gas are the big ones) that they continue to own, not you.

On the other hand most personal property is owned absolutely (allodial I think is the term) - In some civil law countries the same can apply to land.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

for discussion on the issue and follow up of the d6generation podcast's coverage and interview with lone wolf, please see the following thread: DakkaDakka - Warhammer 40K Forums - The D6 Generation Ep 49: Tactica Trademark, Terraforming, & More!

Wow. I listened for about five minutes, then gave it up as 'way too annoying to listen to'.

I think delivery got in the way of content - scaling back the gonzo D.J. vibe would make a lot of difference. There may have been some good information there, but I just could not stomach the presentation.

The Auld Grump

 

[pawsplay]

Interesting. Now I have to wonder what ways you think IP is not defined as property.

You can't steal it, destroy it, or use it, and it doesn't exist in scarcity. It has no intrinsic value, does not exist in many societies, and has been radically redefined several times every century in American history.

Property is a good; IP is a franchise or a license. It's like asking, "How is a contract not property?" or "How is the authorization to use military force not property?" It's... not property. Hence, the "intellectual" part appended to the front.

 

[pemerton]

You can't steal it, destroy it, or use it

This is true of most property in a modern economy, which is neither real property nor bullion but choses in action (shares, debts and more complex contractual or contract-like entitlements).

It is even true, to an extent, of pre-modern incorporeal property rights such as foraging rights and certain sorts of easements.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The key thing is, virtually all laws are constructed by man and are "artificial". Even if you accept the terms of "Natural Law" (as it, rights designated by either objective nature, divine will, some objective moral principle etc.), that's not really something that could be proved, but rather argued philisophically. Therefore, things like the US Bill of Rights can even be deconstructed as artificial privilages setup by man, not to mention property.

That's why I reject arguments designed to sidetrack things, such as "copying is not theft". While that may be technically correct under the legal code, it ignores the whole purpose of the laws setup to handle that and is a distraction. Like permerton says, there are lots of laws that are on the books, and law doesn't just deal with the physical. There's a reason why such "IP" laws were setup, as well as the concept of Intellectual Property being recognized by governments.

I think the key reason why I argue in favor of IP a lot here is I think too many people want to "throw out the whole system", because of some abuses by certain people. That seems to be a common thought nowadays, and I don't think the other side is seen fairly of late.

 

[JohnRTroy]

It has no intrinsic value, does not exist in many societies, and has been radically redefined several times every century in American history.

Well, NOTHING has intrinsic value. Gold, for instance, may be a physically scarce resource, but I doubt a tribe of humans who had little contact with the outside world would care, they'd likely be more concerned with food. All economies are artificial constructs of civilizations.

Not existing in many societies: Well, some societies don't have laws about murder, only mob justice. There are no civil liberties in some societies. Does the lack of those laws make them "better".

Radically redefined--Well, all laws go through that. I mean, remember those 3/5th of a person part of the original constitution? Radical redefinition does not mean "bad". We didn't have any laws regarding things that science discovered such as mental illnesses, etc. Society itself goes through such redefinitions. The law tries to keep up with society and that why we have laws the founding fathers couldn't even have conceived of because they didn't have knowledge of science and the future or technology.

 

[S'mon]

You are describing the difference between real property and personal property (chattels) not the difference between property and not-property.

No I'm not, I teach this stuff for a living, I know what I'm talking about, and having learned my lesson upthread I will not engage further in arguments about how I'm wrong or don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Well, I have to say, I've been finding this a most enlightening seminar on property, property law, intellectual property. Professor Kingsfield would be proud (though I think he taught contracts)!

 

[czak]

No I'm not, I teach this stuff for a living, I know what I'm talking about, and having learned my lesson upthread I will not engage further in arguments about how I'm wrong or don't know what I'm talking about.

Where do you teach law if you don't mind me asking?

I've been taught to view property simply rights, not ownership of a physical object. I took from your posts that you consider being a physical object / existing without / despite a law deeming it to exist, to be a key point of property. But from your irritation I seem to be missing your point, Could you please explain it to me more fully?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That would be an income tax, not a property tax. I pay property taxes for owning property even if that property doesn't generate income. If I use property to generate income, then the property and the income both end up taxed.

It's enough to make me wish I had an army builder to help defend my money.

Hehe... Maybe this could change the entire interest in defending and holding IP totally.

"Tax the rat farms" [/Lord Vetinari]