Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I have been quite clear and explicit about which sense of the word property I have been using - and have previously given dictionary definitions from multiple sources. Here are a few more related to the context of this discussion (since, obviously, there are other senses, such as theatrical properties, that are not relevant):
Business Dictionary = and intangible property (intellectual property). [Links to the definition of intangibles as:] Bonds, notes, shares (stock), long-term contracts, and rights ( such as lease agreements and copyrights) which represent present or future value but, being mere documents, have no intrinsic value of their own.
Wikipedia on Intangible Properties = intangible property is traditionally divided in pure intangibles (such as debts, intellectual property rights and goodwill) and documentary intangibles, which obtain their character through the medium of a document (such as a bill of lading, promissory note or bill of exchange).
financial dictionary = Any tangible or intangible thing that is or may be owned by someone.
So when you say "not generally what one considers property" perhaps you could give some evidence of that (which is relevant to this discussion)? Likewise for "property implies a permanence".
I can imagine that someone not involved in business or accounting might not give much consideration to intangibles, but that is why I have been clear about the context I am using. |
And yet when you use a term, then it comes with all the connotations associated by the general public even if it might have different connotations when used as a term of art within the community of finance and accounting. In other industries such as entertainment, property might mean someone under contract and have absolutely nothing to do with actual ownership.
That's why there is a saying in the world of debate, if I can define the terms, I win the debate. This is, of course, the purpose of the term Intellectual Property, it's an attempt to win the debate and it's done a pretty good job of that.
A more proper term might be limited ownership, i.e. you have the right to use or dispose of something within a small subset of normal ownership rights, which is why I keep using the lease example since it is a more correct analogy for copyright than property. Copyright is more correctly understood by understanding the history of copyright and why copyright originally began.
Copyright was originally an attempt by the various monarchies to control the flow of information following the printing press. Authorship had nothing to do with copyrights at that time. It wasn't until 1710 that copyright was associated with the author.
There is a very explicit quid pro quo in copyright law. This quid pro quo, or social contract if you will, is included in the Statute of Anne in 1710 as well as the US Constitution, says to encourage "learned men to compose and write useful books", they got a finite right to copy and recopy those works. Since the primary purpose was to make useful books available, that copyright was of a very limited term (14 years) and then went into the public domain, thus ensuring access to the work for all. Of course, given the speed of travel now verses back then, an equivalent period now be much shorter, not the much, much longer period we have now.
The idea of copyright as an author's property is a very new idea, relatively speaking, and begun with Victor Hugo's rent seeking venture in the Berne Convention.