[axel77]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

The difference is far bigger than you make it out to be.

I've already written:

I know, that "ideas" are not "used up" like a cow, that can only be milked once in a day, and yes this makes a subtle difference, but it does not change the principle idea at work as it is.

So don't say I'm not aware of this.

If I take your cow, you no longer have that cow. If you take your cow back, I no longer have your cow.

However, if I read your book, you still have your story, but now I have it as well. I cannot "unread" the story.

It has nothing to do with "social rules". It has everything to do with the difference between an idea and a physical object.

No, physical objects don't have anymore any "property" inscribed into them, than an ideas. All this things (classic property right, copyrights, patent rights, etc) are social "ideas", generated by our society how to organise our society. That an idea has no attrition in use doesn't change the fact you can socially be excluded to use it. You cant say its "natural" that things are properties, but its completly "unnatural" that non-things are properties.

When there are social rules that exclude you in the use, it is property. And thus yes, property *does* work with ideas, with texts, and so on. Altough we might not like it, it *is* possible.

I guess the philosophers would call this a "naturalistic false conclusion" that is principle everything that says, its in the "nature" of X that X is ... How is it in "the nature of physical things" that they can be owned, but not "in the nature of ideas" that they can't?

You can argue what makes more sense for society, and even with physical things this has been discussed in the past a lot. Take for example marxism that doesn't want property rights for tools of production... Or how much can you "own" a animal after all? Or how far does ownership go for things of great cultural value (famous paintings) ?