Pirate bay fruits get year in jail

[The Minsky Moment]

If you can take my liver tissue in a way that I never notice, feel free. 

So the key question is whether one notices or not?  Because it is certainly possible for IP holder to notice an infringement as it happens.  This seems to be a pretty irrelevant distinction - surely the significance of a  violation of a property right does not turn on whether it is noticed at the time it happens. 

Even in that case, though, there is only X amount of product per year, and it cannot be consumed non-rivalrously, so no, you cannot steal crops.

Assume -- as is often the case -- that my production far exceeds my personal ability to consume or even give away to frieds and family.  Thus, the consumption of the take is non-rivalrous with my own consumption.  It is only rivalrous with my ability to exploit the surplus through commercial sale and distribution.  This also holds in the IP context. 

Another entertaining fundamental difference, in the US context, is that certain IP protections are only authorized "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts" and "for limited times."  The implied quid-pro-quo for societal benefit and the limited time is simply not found in the real or personal property scenario.

Not exactly - what is limited is certain powers of the federal government.  State law and the common law also instantiate protections of intellectual property right - for example, there are common law trademark, copyrights and trade secret protections.  The significance of the IP Clause is to provide for the possibility of additional protections of such common law rights on a nationwide basis. 

As I stated earlier, all property rights are limited and based on a quid pro quo trade offs of benefits vs. burdens.

If it is fair to tax a higher percentage of the income of those making a higher income, it appears more justified (less unjustified?)  to steal from those who have more than to steal from those who have less.  See also Hood, Robin.

A progressive tax treates everyone equally - the higher rates are on marginal income.  I don't see the connection.  That the government has to make a call about how to distribute the burden of taxation is not a commentary on the legitimacy of property rights generally.

In any case, this is more an argument about why the property rights of the rich should be attenuated, not why IP rights as a category (which may be held by persons of modest means) should be considered less legitimate than other forms of property right.

[Barrister]

I believe humans to be born with a sense of ownership of land (control of territory can be as important for mammals in the urban jungle as for mammals in the tropic jungle).

You may believe that, but I suspect it runs contrary to a lot of evidence.  An awful lot of cultures have historically not believed in the concept of ownership of land, or would even believe the opposite - that humans belonged to the land, not the reverse.

[Pat]

I believe humans to be born with a sense of ownership of land (control of territory can be as important for mammals in the urban jungle as for mammals in the tropic jungle).

You may believe that, but I suspect it runs contrary to a lot of evidence.  An awful lot of cultures have historically not believed in the concept of ownership of land, or would even believe the opposite - that humans belonged to the land, not the reverse.

Well, these people you speak of. When another people or tribe move in on the territory they inhabit, do they not defend it?

[The Minsky Moment]

Having raised the existence of the common law of IP protection, I would add that some of these protections are of very ancient vintage.  Copyright protections can be dated back to the early days of the publishing industry.  Trade secret protection is even older - it is traced back to the actio servi corrupti actions of ancient Rome.  This is so even though trade secrets are the quintessential non rivalrous property - they are pure ideas.

[Pat]

Indeed, and wine producers of Gaul would copy the corks of the superior producers of Italy 

[Razgovory]

Having raised the existence of the common law of IP protection, I would add that some of these protections are of very ancient vintage.  Copyright protections can be dated back to the early days of the publishing industry.  Trade secret protection is even older - it is traced back to the actio servi corrupti actions of ancient Rome.  This is so even though trade secrets are the quintessential non rivalrous property - they are pure ideas.

Corrupting a slave or servant?

[Razgovory]

Don't look at me - Martinus is the one who relied on that particular distinction.

Actually I thought it was a religious concept.

[ulmont]

This seems to be a pretty irrelevant distinction - surely the significance of a  violation of a property right does not turn on whether it is noticed at the time it happens. 

As noted, the fundamental distinction is between rivalrous and non-rivalrous consumption.  Absent an external force imposing arbitrary monopolies, IP consumption is non-rivalrous in an age of digital distribution.

Assume -- as is often the case -- that my production far exceeds my personal ability to consume or even give away to frieds and family.  Thus, the consumption of the take is non-rivalrous with my own consumption.  It is only rivalrous with my ability to exploit the surplus through commercial sale and distribution.  This also holds in the IP context. 

Uh, no.  Commercial sale of a bushel of crops, leaving the seller with X - 1 bushels, is rivalrous.  Commercial sale of a digital copy of a work, leaving the seller with X copies, is non-rivalrous.  Your analogy is Martinused.

Not exactly - what is limited is certain powers of the federal government.

Evidencing the views of the Framers on the tradeoff.  I did not mention trademarks previously, as they are a distinctly different class of IP.  In fact, trademarks are more of a public benefit, offering the public the ability to recognize the producer of a good or service, than a real IP right vested in the owner (if not, there would not be the naked assignment and abandonment rules, to pick the most obvious).

Trade secrets are rivalrous; once the second person knows the information, the benefit is lost or significantly diminished to the creator.  They are much more like personal property than copyrights or patents.

there are common law trademark, copyrights and trade secret protections.

Common law trademarks and trade secrets are discussed above.  17 USC 301 says you are wrong regarding common law copyright except as a matter of historical interest.

all property rights are limited and based on a quid pro quo trade offs of benefits vs. burdens.

There is a qualitative difference in the quid pro quo made for a piece of personal property, a piece of real property, and a piece of intellectual property.  These differences are sufficiently varied in degree and kind as to be "fundamental".  This was and is my point.

[DontSayBanana]

@Minsky:

On potential recusal: I see no direct relation to prosecution witnesses, but there is grounds for recusal in that one of the chief issues of the case is whether or not providing the tracker constitutes a breach of copyright law. Since there was an attempt to establish that as a fact of the case (in fact in the second day of the trial, prosecutors dropped half the charges because of that question), that's where the conflict of interest lies.

[Barrister]

I believe humans to be born with a sense of ownership of land (control of territory can be as important for mammals in the urban jungle as for mammals in the tropic jungle).

You may believe that, but I suspect it runs contrary to a lot of evidence.  An awful lot of cultures have historically not believed in the concept of ownership of land, or would even believe the opposite - that humans belonged to the land, not the reverse.

Well, these people you speak of. When another people or tribe move in on the territory they inhabit, do they not defend it?

This is the junior high version of history, but it has some accuracy...

No, not necessarily.  When the Dutch offered to buy New York for some beads the Indians figured they got the better end of the deal since no one can own land.

[Razgovory]

I always thought that was a myth.

[Barrister]

I always thought that was a myth.

As I mentioned, I think the truth is far more complex but it has some truth to it.  The first nations notion of ownership of land is quite different than ours.

[Razgovory]

I always thought that was a myth.

As I mentioned, I think the truth is far more complex but it has some truth to it.  The first nations notion of ownership of land is quite different than ours.

Was it actually uniform?  You say "First Nations" but there were lots of people in North America when the Euros got here.  I doubt they all looked at land use in the same way.

[grumbler]

I'm going to maintain my disagreement.  And really, grumbler, you're saying that you don't see any fundamental difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous consumption?

Even if "rivalrous" was a word, the issue at stake isn't consumption, but rather production, and so the difference you note is irrelevant.

You can borrow my Mike and the Mechanics CD and "consume" it all you like.  You just cannot produce another copy of it, because the right to produce copies is held by someone else.

[ulmont]

Even if "rivalrous" was a word

Main Entry: ri·val·rous 
Pronunciation: \ˈrī-vəl-rəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 1812
: given to rivalry : competitive

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rivalrous

The word only dates back to 1812, so I can see how it might be a little new for you.

And here's an example of it being used in the economic context, in an Economics textbook by Richard Lipsey:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XzU1jwwwU80C&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=rivalrous+economics&source=bl&ots=-2m47Khr8i&sig=LBi5Pd6EB2_OtrlUSY2gAVqsN9o&hl=en&ei=UrTxSbzXEtyLtgeenJynDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

You can borrow my Mike and the Mechanics CD and "consume" it all you like.  You just cannot produce another copy of it, because the right to produce copies is held by someone else.

You're begging the question there.  Absent the externally imposed right to copy structure, I can make a copy of your Mike and the Mechanics CD and enjoy it without taking yours away.  This cannot be done with your car.  The difference is fundamental.