Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB
Would it make everybody/anybody feel happier if we referred to copyrights as intangible assets or insisted on "intellectual property" as distinct from "real" property?
In today's world, it's hard for anyone to say with a straight face that intangible assets do not have value and are not susceptible to theft as much as any other class of property.
|
I'm fine with intangible assets. No one ever claimed that copyright can't have value (obvious it depends on the material being copyrighted). Obviously the tangible item, be it a book, painting, whatever, is subject to thief. Stocks and bonds are subject to thief as well, since even though they are referred to as intangible assets, the actual paper they are printed on can be stolen. Violation of Copyright, in and of itself, isn't thief, though it is breaking the law.
OED defines property in the legal context as " the (exclusive) right to the possession, use, or disposal of a thing; ownership, proprietorship." Copyright is not a thing. Elsewhere copyright is compared to a mortgage, but perhaps copyright is better compared to a title such as Duke or Earl. A title is granted by the crown and can be removed by the crown. I would say that the two are a lot closer in meaning and usage than what most consider property. I would also say that a huge driver of the Intellectual Property meme is patents. In the US, the expansion of patents to cover ideas and concepts rather than what had previously limited to tangible devices has exploded the number of patents and is a huge part of various businesses business model. Patents are a much bigger part of the IP model than copyright is.
(just as a note, there is a definition regarding property and copyrighted material. In show business, a play or movie is referred to as a property)