On 2013-05-22 16:28, Hugo Roy wrote:
> I don't get what the first paragraph has to do with unhosted at
Cavemen with hammers are totally unhosted! ;)
the reason i brought that example up is because i think it lets you
imagine how intellectual property would work in a time when there was no
government and no law, only social instincts.
> Also, the logic completely fails at: “Hence the idea of
> intellectual property.” There is absolutely no logical connection
> from the fact that an invention can be used at the
> advantage/disadvantage of someone and from the conclusion that
> there is such a thing as “intellectual property”
ok well, let's at least say you can use an invention in a trade
situation "as if" it is your intellectual property. you can offer your
invention to another person as if you were offering a physical object,
or any other asset which we say can be "owned". basically what you're
selling is your exclusive access to a scarce good. and this exclusivity
fades away naturally as the knowledge gets more common, so then its
value in trade fades.
it is not a moral thing, more practical arising from human interaction.
for instance, a storyteller can charge for telling a story he knows, and
if both sides of the trade are happy, then there is a deal. doesn't mean
that the other person would then be impeded in any way from reproducing
that story. :)
i hope that explains my standpoint a bit. in this context it mainly
serves to say an ISP can charge for the last-mile connectivity it is
providing, but it cannot "sell" the services you access through that.