logoalt Hacker News

droobyyesterday at 1:09 PM4 repliesview on HN

I mean.. this claim is just untrue. "Owning" something is a social construct defined by law. Our entire society exists because we own things we cannot hold, that is, intellectual property.

What this post is actually pointing out is that intellectual property that has transferrable physical representation has more value to the consumer.

And intellectual property that does not have transferable physical representation has more value to the producer.

Reselling or gifting a book you've read to a friend is wholesome.. it feels good. Truly.. but every time we do that we also take from the artist.


Replies

dangyesterday at 8:32 PM

(Article title and submission title originally was "If You Can't Hold It, You Don't Own It" - it's since been changed, so we updated the title above.)

andaiyesterday at 1:12 PM

>our entire society exists because of intellectual property

Are you sure that's true? If so, in which century did it start being true?

show 2 replies
dml2135yesterday at 2:38 PM

> but every time we do that we also take from the artist

No, every time we do that, we do not give to the artist. But not giving is not the same as taking.

show 1 reply
thepryzyesterday at 1:34 PM

Do we really take away from the artist? In what way?

The obvious answer is that you take away a purchase the person to give the gift would have made. One could argue that there is also value in propagating someone’s art and potentially increasing the artists customer/patron base. Think of it as advertising or to put it in the context of a drug deal, the first hit’s free. The gift recipient may then go on to buy another work from that artist and even pass on the one they were given to someone else, continuing the cycle.

I’d also argue that there isn’t widespread agreement on reasonable compensation for artists. Personally, I don’t consider artists to be special enough in the context of people that make and produce goods, that they should get unique treatment. Why does a family deserve the financial benefits of trademarks and copyrights decades after the artists death. That’s just one example, but in a time when many’s artists view their livelihoods to be at risk because of AI, it’s not popular to engage in any debate that undermines the artist in any way.