Talk:Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property
|WikiProject Libertarianism||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
missing a critical argument
The entry has more than one paragraph that begins with something like "Many libertarians consider " and at the risk of suggesting that you add one I will suggest that the most important one was missed. Thankfully it was covered on the page you gave the link to http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html in the "The Ethical Argument" section. But I think it is too important an aspect of this argument to be missed in the article. I suspect that among the natural rights/property rights libertarians who do not favor intellectual property (such as myself) the main point is that intellectual property is not property at all. It is not a physical thing, not a tangible object. Most theories that support property rights assume the property is material. The material aspect of property is critical, it makes clear the aspect of possession. Since information itself is not possessed except by means of the physical property on/in which is contained, it is not property in and of itself. It is too ethereal to be covered by the same theories of physical property rights. --jszostek
I concur. Chally 10:54:14, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
"Privileges such as copyright..."
I removed the term "privileges" entirely from the introduction of copyrights, patents and trademarks in this context, because its use was not neutral. The article is about the debate over whether intellectual property issues govern rights or privileges, and what the meaning of that distinction is. Therefore, "Privileges such as copyright," etc., became "Copyrights," etc. Additionally, a term such as "copyright privilege" is in itself a non-sequitur. Chally 10:52:37, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
- Doesn't the word "privilege" have a different meaning in legal contexts than it does in everyday usage? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Not practicing what they preach?
- That paper isn't an official position of the institute itself, it's the opinion of an author who had to agree to the institute's terms (including copyright) when getting published. The site itself links to this license and is "reasonably liberal with reprint permissions", so that may have been enough to satisfy the author. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete article maybe
This article has no secondary sources to show that anything here is notable. Right now it is like a high school essay. The whole thing violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. I went looking and found no reliable secondary sources... am thinking about nominating this for deletion. It is not clear the editors here even understand IP rights. The discussion about Reason etc "copyrighting" their articles is just silly. In the US copyright automatically adheres, the moment that an author creates a work. You will notice that Reason has the circle-c symbol =- all that means is that they are informing readers who owns that automatic copyright. This allows them to prevent others from plagiarizing their work or making extensive use of it without their permission - they can get an injunction but they cannot get money, if they ever want to bother doing that. They have not registered the copyright (that would be the circle-R symbol) which would take effort and money and interacting with the government.. and this is what would entitle them to sue for money damages. If folks who care about this topic (I care about IP, I like libertarianism, but I care about other wiki topics more than this) can find secondary sources and get this in shape I won't nominate this for deletion. But right now that is what it deserves. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)