The Statute of Anne came into force in The Statute of Monopolies and the British Statute of Anne are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively,  firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property. The first known use of the term intellectual property dates towhen a piece published in the Monthly Review used the phrase. The organization subsequently relocated to Geneva inand was succeeded in with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO by treaty as an agency of the United Nations.
The general rule, then, is that ownership of a given scarce resource can be identified by determining who first occupied it. There are various ways to possess or occupy resources, and different ways to demonstrate or prove such occupation, depending upon the nature of the resource and the use to which it is put.
Thus, I can pluck an apple from the wild and thereby homestead it, or I can fence in a plot of land for a farm. But these raw materials are scarce, and either I own them or I do not. If not, then I do not own the resulting product.
If I own the inputs, then, by virtue of such ownership, I own the resulting thing into which I transform them.
Consider the forging of a sword. If I own some raw metal because I mined it from ground I ownedthen I own the same metal after I have shaped it into a sword. I do not need to rely on the fact of creation to own the sword, but only on my ownership of the factors used to make the sword.
On the other hand, if I fashion a sword using your metal, I do not own the resulting sword. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion.
Creation, therefore, is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish ownership. The focus on creation distracts from the crucial role of first occupation as a property rule for addressing the fundamental fact of scarcity. First occupation, not creation or labor, is both necessary and sufficient for the homesteading of unowned scarce resources.
Instead, property rights must be recognized in first-comers or their contractual transferees in order to avoid the omnipresent problem of conflict over scarce resources. Creation itself is neither necessary nor sufficient to gain rights in unowned resources.
Labor is a type of action, and action is not ownable; rather, it is the way that some material things e. However, ideal objects are not ownable. But it is not creation per se that gives rise to ownership, as pointed out above. Rand and other natural-rights IP proponents seem to adopt a mixed natural rights — utilitarian rationale in holding that the person who invests time and effort must be rewarded or benefit from this effort e.
Thus, because ideas are not scarce resources in the sense that physical conflict over their use is possible, they are not the proper subject of property rights designed to avoid such conflicts.
After all, since new ideas, artistic creations, and innovations continually enrich us, what is the harm in moving with the times by recognizing new forms of property? The problem is that if property rights are recognized in non-scarce resources, this necessarily means that property rights in material resources are correspondingly diminished.
This is because the only way to recognize ideal rights, in our real, scarce world, is to allocate rights in material goods. In fact, we can see that IP rights imply a new rule for acquiring rights in scarce resources, which undercuts the libertarian homesteading principle.
A late-comer who seizes control of all or part of such owned property is simply a thief, because the property is already owned. Proponents of IP must also advocate a new homesteading rule to supplement, if not replace, the first-possessor homesteading rule.
To wit, the IP advocate must propose some homesteading rule along the following lines: To take another example, imagine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy — let us call him Galt-Magnon — decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it.
They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses.
Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.
There is, in fact, no reason why merely innovating gives the innovator partial ownership of property that others already own.Jan 11, · This has broad implications for, among other things, intellectual property, defamation, and the kind of situation Yahoo!
got into regarding Nazi memorabilia in France. Legal aspects of file sharing. Jump to navigation Jump to search. This and on this basis they do not infringe rights protected by Intellectual Property laws".
based upon the specific facts of that case. Under US law "the Betamax decision" (Sony Corp. of America v. The Case Against Intellectual Property (Springer, ) by Stephan Kinsella. Let us take a step back and look afresh at the idea of property rights.
Libertarians believe in property rights in material goods (resources). Kinsella S () In defense of Napster and against the second homesteading rule. monstermanfilm.com (Sept 4) Intellectual property (IP) is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect, and primarily encompasses copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
It also includes other types of rights, such as trade secrets, publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair monstermanfilm.comic works like music and literature, as well as .
Welcome to The Discography's central monstermanfilm.comr it's the best thing you've ever seen or just some passing novelty forwarded by a coworker, it is the most elaborate collection of its kind.
James Boyle The Public Domain Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. Copyright © by James Boyle. The author has made this online version available under a Creative.