dialectical apparatus definitely silenced those of the SGAE: We start
John Locke:
" Each man owns his own person . No one but he's right about it. We can say that the work of your body and works of his hands are strictly his own. When away a thing of the state that nature has provided and deposited in it and mix with it his work, he adds something that is yours, thereby making your property . Now there beside him, separated from the common state nature placed on it. With his work has added something that excludes the common right of other people. Since this work is the undisputed property of the worker, no one can be right about what you added ... "
But keep in mind the following danger to siguendo Stephan Kinsella:
" By the very made to think and to reflect the original pattern of information, or for the mere fact of finding a new way to use your property, the operator protected by intellectual property becomes part owner of the property of others "." The mere fact devised a new technique for digging holes, the inventor can prevent all the other guys in the world to dig holes in the same way, even on their property. "
Or play a music CD of your property. Or copying a work on paper of your property.
Concluding on Albert Esplugas:
"In economics we talk of scarce goods when the use of property by an individual excludes / restricts the use of this either by another person or for any other purpose. An apple, for example, is a scarce resource because if swallowed it I can not use it for other purpose and no other person can give another use. Therefore, a good is there may be little conflict over its use by multiple human actors . Air is a poor example but not today, because the fact that I breathe not exclude / restrict the use for someone to make the air.
The possibility of conflict arises the need to establish an ethic that is consistent with human nature and to have rules on the use of these scarce goods. This is the foundation of Lockean property rights. Thus, to avoid conflict, the rights of property must be visible and fair.
But ideas, and that's the key point, are not in short supply. Intangible objects are not exclusive use, there can be conflict over use. If I use an idea that does not prevent someone else can make use of the same idea at the moment. My use of a particular idea does not exclude / restrict the use of anyone for that idea. If I sing a song, it does not prevent other can sing. The song is not spent by many voices that chant. "
Then
is not legitimate for property rights in intangibles. The ideas are not appropriable ...
not legitimate or useful. The establishment of monopolies over intellectual property-patents, copyrights, at all has encouraged greater artistic creation and scientific content, as they say. You have many examples in the book Against Intellectual Monopoly, very much worth a perusal.
