Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5101696" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure I agree with all the above - not that I dispute the points of law, but the sense of destruction involved here is not natural but artificial (or, as you say, "statutory"). In that sense IP rights can be destroyed (eg subject to constitutional constraints on bills of attainder, an act could be passed declaring that there shall be no IP rights in respect of Mickey Mouse).Burning down a forest wouldn't necessarily destroy foraging rights in respect of the land concerned, although it might reduce their value (depending on the nature of the rights and the cause of the fire, it might also vest the beneficiaries of the foraging rights with an entitlement to compensation from the owner of the forest).Depending on the details of the social and legal system in question, foraging rights may be alienable, but then so are IP rights.I don't really dispute any of the above, although I'm a bit more sceptical about even the limited sorts of natural property rights that you refer to above.It's certainly not my intention to defend (nor to criticise) the system of IP law in the US or any other jurisdiction. But, because of my scepticism about natural property rights, I'm not sure that criticising IP on the grounds that it's not really property is a sound way to go.My preferred starting point for thinking about IP law is to try to understand the social and economic causes that have led to a situation where, in order to enjoy a common and popular culture, we are dependent upon private commercial actors producing it; and then to try and understand the social and economic consequences of that dependence. Until these sociological and historical questions are worked through, I don't feel we have an adequate handle on what the critique (or defence) of IP law would mean.</blockquote>

Verification