tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post5018691994729840741..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Locke on CopyrightUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-22872624899447166592011-01-22T06:03:12.605-08:002011-01-22T06:03:12.605-08:00The Lockean proposition of copyright really only e...The Lockean proposition of copyright really only establishes attribution: it 'attaches' a particular thing to a particular creator/author.<br /><br />But attribution alone does not justify anything much. I may have made a shovel, but that does not then give me a right to dig anyone and everyone's garden with it. Attribution of authorship is merely the 'location' of some possible rights; it is insufficient to set the limits of those rights on its own.<br /><br />And Locke understood this, which is why he clearly added the condition of "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". For a rule to be moral it must make sense more widely than for its primary participant. It must work overall for everyone. *That* is what sets the limits.<br /><br />'Abstract goods' (i.e. the subjects of copyright) are nonrival. They behave fundamentally differently to material things. It means the tacit assumption that some similar restriction is implied immediately falters. And that is the end for the Lockean 'argument'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-50588625039689970582007-12-20T20:44:00.000-08:002007-12-20T20:44:00.000-08:00Glen: Yeah, that's basically what they argue--eve...Glen: Yeah, that's basically what they argue--even that bit about IP offering a better case for Locke's theory. But I think Locke's opinion does matter, and that he was quite right to regard copyright skeptically. He didn't speak in terms of non-rivalrousness (alas) but he probably understood that tangible property alone merited special regard. And, whether or not Locke did or his latter-day follower do recognize it, the claim that copyrights do not borrow from pre-existing works is wildly inaccurate. Nobody creates in a vacuum.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-81792726710561352852007-12-20T17:43:00.000-08:002007-12-20T17:43:00.000-08:00Locke may not have embraced copyright, but I don't...Locke may not have embraced copyright, but I don't think those we invoke Locke are claiming that. Instead, I think they're appealing to the Lockean notion that what people <EM>really</EM> own is the product of their labor. Locke applied this notion to justify ownership of tangible assets by saying that we mixed our labor with the land. The copyright advocates are saying that an <EM>idea</EM> is, in some sense, <EM>pure</EM> labor; unlike a piece of land, it would not have existed were it not for your thought and effort.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the copyright advocate might argue that there is a better case, on Lockean principles, for copyright than for tangible property -- whether Locke admitted it or not.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.com