I mean.. this claim is just untrue. "Owning" something is a social construct defined by law. Our entire society exists because we own things we cannot hold, that is, intellectual property.

What this post is actually pointing out is that intellectual property that has transferrable physical representation has more value to the consumer.

And intellectual property that does not have transferable physical representation has more value to the producer.

Reselling or gifting a book you've read to a friend is wholesome.. it feels good. Truly.. but every time we do that we also take from the artist.

▲

andai 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>our entire society exists because of intellectual property

Are you sure that's true? If so, in which century did it start being true?

▲

jfengel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From the beginning. Ownership is intangible. It exists only because of the collective consent to laws.

The difference between ownership of a physical object and ownership of an intellectual one is a matter of conventional. It's easier to define ownership of an object that is excludable, but that's human convenience, not a physical law.

	▲	microgpt 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So Neanderthals had copyright law and if they didn't, their society would have fallen apart? Is that why it did fall apart?
	▲	TacticalCoder 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Some dogs have a concept of items belonging to them. Early humans had weapons and, with our lizard mind, things wouldn't go well when neanderthal B considered neanderthal A's weapon was now is. They also had "homes": caves/camps that belonged to them. Fighting physically for ownership predates fighting judicially for ownership. To the extent that you can "own" another animal: the ownership of a female by a male is definitely a thing in the animal kingdom. And before the first law was ever written, human slavery (estimated to be at least 4000 BC, with mentions in the first law ever written) did exist too. Ownership predates the law that later on codified the concept of ownership.

▲

drooby 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There was a touch of hyperbole ;) we live in the Information Age after all.. but to answer your question,

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution

Which empowered Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Scientists and the artists and their "exclusive rights" have built quite a lot over the centuries.

▲

dml2135 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> but every time we do that we also take from the artist

No, every time we do that, we do not give to the artist. But not giving is not the same as taking.

	▲	drooby 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, we take from the artist a motivation for a buyer to purchase their work.

▲

thepryz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do we really take away from the artist? In what way?

The obvious answer is that you take away a purchase the person to give the gift would have made. One could argue that there is also value in propagating someone’s art and potentially increasing the artists customer/patron base. Think of it as advertising or to put it in the context of a drug deal, the first hit’s free. The gift recipient may then go on to buy another work from that artist and even pass on the one they were given to someone else, continuing the cycle.

I’d also argue that there isn’t widespread agreement on reasonable compensation for artists. Personally, I don’t consider artists to be special enough in the context of people that make and produce goods, that they should get unique treatment. Why does a family deserve the financial benefits of trademarks and copyrights decades after the artists death. That’s just one example, but in a time when many’s artists view their livelihoods to be at risk because of AI, it’s not popular to engage in any debate that undermines the artist in any way.