Unlike physical property, "intellectual property" doesn't exist by itself. The thing that exists, the product that it is that you ostensibly "own" that is protected by the government is the copyright, a soft of reified extension of ownership, which only has any value inasmuch as the government protects it.
In other words, intellectual property is only worth what the government says it is. It doesn't just hold the gun, in this case, it contrived the whole scenario in which a gun was necessary, and the presence of the gun is the only thing that prevents the "intellectual property" from spreading naturally, as information is wont to do.
You can argue whether the creation of this market is for the greater good, but the fact is that it's not in any way the same kind of market as evolves around physical goods, and is not regulated or enforced in the same kind of way.
I don't think it is any different for physical property. What is a pound of gold worth when you are defenseless and someone else has armed men willing to kill you.
Might makes right and owns all property is the default. Every situation that deviates from this is imposed by governments.
Why did you choose gold as an example? How about a sword? Claiming that physical and intellectual property are the same is reductionistic at best. The fact that both properties are protected by power doesn't mean that they are the same. Physical property is not copyable. Intellectual property is.
> Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above.
> I am saying their relation to the government is the same.
Then I don't have anything to object. But I suspect that the above points were clear in your comments. I don't think anybody here would object to the idea that physical property law and IP law have the same legal standing. What people object to are the principles of the IP law.
EDIT: Following up with more analysis of the parent's comments... Indeed the following was clearly stated [0]:
> Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government.
The following example to clarify the above statement muddies the water, though:
> Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law).
Physical property theft deprives the owner absolutely. Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense. Regardless, government is “right” to pursue enforcing both laws, because they are laws after all.
>Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense.
I think this is certainly settled in the legal sense. If an employee publishes source code to a product, or someone leaks a new movie, the courts dont have to debate if the owner has a legitimate grievance.
People can debate hypothetical alternatives to IP and their implications, but the status quo is clear. If you are using "questionable" not to mean uncertain, but in the literal sense, then sure (anything is questionable).
> If an employee publishes source code to a product
What if that product has been obsolete for a long time? It is possible that there is no harm in an IP infringement case, whereas in property theft the amount of harm incurred is the property itself at the minimum. The amount of harm, if any, is questioned by the court.
I am not at all opposed to IP reform as a general concept. There are a million corner cases, and I agree many of them should be re-examined. For example, I think the criteria for fundamental software patents should be set more conservatively.
Another consideration is use it or lose it provisions, although I am much more on the fence on this. It would essentially destroy patents which have multiple embodiments, but might make sense for literature.
I am mostly responding to the idea of tossing IP in general, Which I think is misguided. There are countless ways in which this could cause great harm and essentially gut creators in favor of manufacturers or marketers
There is no deviation. It is still the might of governments (through police/military) imposed on all with less might, in service of those keeping them in power.
In other words, intellectual property is only worth what the government says it is. It doesn't just hold the gun, in this case, it contrived the whole scenario in which a gun was necessary, and the presence of the gun is the only thing that prevents the "intellectual property" from spreading naturally, as information is wont to do.
You can argue whether the creation of this market is for the greater good, but the fact is that it's not in any way the same kind of market as evolves around physical goods, and is not regulated or enforced in the same kind of way.