you understand there is a difference between personal property and corporate property right? and then beyond that, there is a difference between owning a tangible product and information.
Ownership is when one is allowed to keep all others from accessing or using a thing.
If that one is a person or corp., or the thing is physical or imaginary, it doesn’t change the nature of ownership itself.
A person or a corp could make different choices with their ownership rights. And ownership of physical or imaginary things have different enforcement challenges. But none of that changes the fundamental concept of ownership.
But as I said elsewhere: “The real point I meant is that fake concepts can still be useful. Like the concept of ownership.”
The enforcement of that ownership is entirely different, yes.
Basically the only way to maintain ownership of intangibles is to keep them a secret.
Also, don’t all intangibles fit the definition of information? I don’t recall running across any that wouldn’t, but I’m curious. Can you give an example of what you mean?
If ownership didn’t exist, the data wouldn’t be valuable enough to collect. You couldn’t sell it, because nobody would buy it, because they couldn’t use it to sell anything, since they don’t own anything either.
But that wasn’t really the point I was trying to make. The real point I meant is that fake concepts can still be useful. Like the concept of ownership.
If we can achieve the post-scarcity part, I’ll happily accept the communism part, but I don’t see that happening until we develop Star Trek style matter replicators
IP is a fake concept
internet protocol:
Ownership is a fake concept.
you understand there is a difference between personal property and corporate property right? and then beyond that, there is a difference between owning a tangible product and information.
Ownership is when one is allowed to keep all others from accessing or using a thing.
If that one is a person or corp., or the thing is physical or imaginary, it doesn’t change the nature of ownership itself.
A person or a corp could make different choices with their ownership rights. And ownership of physical or imaginary things have different enforcement challenges. But none of that changes the fundamental concept of ownership.
But as I said elsewhere: “The real point I meant is that fake concepts can still be useful. Like the concept of ownership.”
ownership of tangibles and intangibles (specifically information) are entirely different, regardless how you wanna define ownership or whatever.
The enforcement of that ownership is entirely different, yes.
Basically the only way to maintain ownership of intangibles is to keep them a secret.
Also, don’t all intangibles fit the definition of information? I don’t recall running across any that wouldn’t, but I’m curious. Can you give an example of what you mean?
i couldn’t think of anything either I was just covering all my bases lol
So by that logic you don’t own your own data and therefore don’t care about privacy.
If ownership didn’t exist, the data wouldn’t be valuable enough to collect. You couldn’t sell it, because nobody would buy it, because they couldn’t use it to sell anything, since they don’t own anything either.
But that wasn’t really the point I was trying to make. The real point I meant is that fake concepts can still be useful. Like the concept of ownership.
Ownership for me but not for thee!
That’s just what people say when they don’t like paying for things
Yes, exactly, you get it! I don’t like paying for things, you don’t like paying for things. Paying for things sucks. We need post scarcity communism.
If we can achieve the post-scarcity part, I’ll happily accept the communism part, but I don’t see that happening until we develop Star Trek style matter replicators
🙄
Ya, because that works out great in real life.
With the post-scarcity caveat firmly in place, it would work great, actually.
“I don’t want to pay for things, therefore other people shouldn’t be allowed to earn a living from their hard work”