Well then they can sleep in your bed if you want the couch or someone else in your home you aren't using.

But then how do we determine who has priority for the couch? The singleton nature of the couch requires some form of access control to prevent disputes. No such restriction exists for a memory of the couch, once we have each been exposed to it we can enjoy the memory perpetually and simultaneously with no conflicts.

Artificially restricting what can be remembered and by whom solely on the basis that some forms of memory produce new physical artifacts ("copies") is absurd on its face.

That said, the ability to monetize a memory is much more like the couch. In theory this is the resource copyright aims to protect. In practice, experts disagree to what extent piracy impacts potential monetization leaving us with two sides of the debate tending to talk past eachother.

▲

nkrisc 4 days ago | parent [-]

If someone else is sleeping on it, it’s not your couch until you remove them from it and occupy it yourself.

Unless we agree upon the abstract concept of “owning” property even while you do not physically possess it.

You need look no father than a kindergarten to see the natural way of things: the toy belongs to whichever toddler is holding it.

While not entirely comparable, it is no more absurd to extend the idea to intangible ideas as well.

	▲	lovich 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The discussion was started on IP law, you have to agree on abstract concepts of ownership as a bedrock of the entire system since you can’t physically be in possession of an idea. If you need to bring us down to kindergarten or toddler level for us to no longer need to come to an agreement on the definition of ownership, I’m not sure there’s much more to discuss
	▲	c22 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, a simple lock (in the concurrent software sense) is one system that could work. Harking back to my own kindergarten experience, though, I am not sure if such a system is best for minimizing disputes.