Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6374791" data-attributes="member: 42582">Probably not. It's neither assignable nor chargeable.I live in Australia, where bank deposits are not insured. Also, the bank is just an example - I could equally be talking about a deposit in an S&amp;L, or some other non-insured financial service provider.This is not correct as a statement either of law or finance.For instance, a Picasso painting is not fungible but nevertheless can be assigned, or used as security. Fungibility is irrelevant to something having the general attributes of property.And to flip it around - blood is basically fungible (relative to blood type) but, at least in Australian law, is not property because Australian law, as a general proposition, does not recognise property in body parts.Your simple exlusivity definition of property doesn't work even for joint tenancies, in which both parties enjoy an undivided share in the property in question.As I said upthread, I'm not expressing a view on your broader points about copyright - I'm just talking about what is or isn't property. (For what it's worth - Woody Guthrie had similar views towards banks and other financiers as you have towards copyright owners, but he didn't feel the need to express that view by denying that they owned things. &quot;Is owned&quot; or &quot;is property&quot; does not entail &quot;is justified&quot; or &quot;is socially functional&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6374791, member: 42582"] Probably not. It's neither assignable nor chargeable. I live in Australia, where bank deposits are not insured. Also, the bank is just an example - I could equally be talking about a deposit in an S&L, or some other non-insured financial service provider. This is not correct as a statement either of law or finance. For instance, a Picasso painting is not fungible but nevertheless can be assigned, or used as security. Fungibility is irrelevant to something having the general attributes of property. And to flip it around - blood is basically fungible (relative to blood type) but, at least in Australian law, is not property because Australian law, as a general proposition, does not recognise property in body parts. Your simple exlusivity definition of property doesn't work even for joint tenancies, in which both parties enjoy an undivided share in the property in question. As I said upthread, I'm not expressing a view on your broader points about copyright - I'm just talking about what is or isn't property. (For what it's worth - Woody Guthrie had similar views towards banks and other financiers as you have towards copyright owners, but he didn't feel the need to express that view by denying that they owned things. "Is owned" or "is property" does not entail "is justified" or "is socially functional".) [/QUOTE]

Verification