The reason no one is discussing property rights is that “intellectual property” is not property in the same sense as real-estate or gold. It is consists in nothing other than a government-granted monopoly.
“Piracy” does not deprive anyone of, say, a song, as it creates another copy of the song. All it does is deprive someone (in the ideal world the artist who recorded the song, in the real world a company that bought the rights to the song and probably tries to not pay a continuing stream of royalties to the artist if they can help it) of putative revenue they might have earned if the person desiring a copy of the song to listen to at will had been willing to pay a price based on the government-granted monopoly. Monopoly prices are usually higher than those created by the market. (And for goods which can be infinitely reproduced, an efficient market drives the price toward zero.)
Once copyrights and patents extend beyond the Constitutionally mandated purpose, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” and turn into a way of using state power to secure the market position of some types of corporations, it is natural to talk about fascism, whose economic program involves state cooperation with moneyed interests “in the common good”. Once intrusive technical means of law enforcement are broached it is natural to talk about Orwell.
“The reason no one is discussing property rights is that ‘intellectual property’ is not property in the same sense as real-estate or gold. It is consists in nothing other than a government-granted monopoly”
It most certainly is not a “monopoly,” at least not in any sense that the word is regularly used. Just as reasonable to say you have a government-granted “monopoly” over the use of your home. Usually, to have a monopoly means to have exclusive control of the disposal of some particular commodity. Though it might be defensible in the name of rhetorical hyperbole to say I have a “monopoly” over a certain percent of the sales of the “commodity” that is some book I have written (for instance), it’s reckless, uncharitable, and prejudicial.
But no need to go too far into what intellectual property is and is not. We’re all familiar with the stock arguments, and, more importantly, it bores me. I just wish to point out my continuing perplexity that even in a post by a person who admits the efficacy of at least the “Constitutionally mandated purpose” of copyright law, you find the casual employment of words like “monopoly,” “Orwell,” and “facism” (though, granted, you are directly responding to my use of them). RIAA goes too far, big corporations have too many advantages already, digital piracy isn’t the same as other forms of intellectual theft, and so on. What are we really talking about here? A difference of degree. Is what they’re asking really that far “beyond the Constitutionally mandated purpose” of copyright protection so as to threaten free speech (still don’t understand that one, but whatever), push us further into the evil Corporatism, and conjure nightmares of Dystopia? No.
“Once intrusive technical means of law enforcement are broached it is natural to talk about Orwell.”
Yes, if you’re a crank. We’re not talking about monitoring nearly every aspect of your life, leaving only a cramped corner of an alcove in your house in which to live freely. Nor calling for black helicopters to swarm your neighborhood at all hours. Such things exist, of course, and law enforcement has all manner of evil technology. But that’s neither here nor there.