José Carlos Herrán ha escrito un artículo en defensa de la propiedad intelectual que no da respuesta satisfactoria a cuestiones como el fundamento de la propiedad privada, la naturaleza escasa o de uso excluyente de los recursos susceptibles de ser apropiados etc. Desarrolla su argumento en base a premisas dudosas. En los comentarios apunto varias referencias y copio un fragmento que resume el argumento anti-propiedad intelectual.
En el blog Against Monopoly, una fuente esencial de información anti-PI, han publicado el comentario de un coreógrafo recién persuadido por los argumentos de Kinsella.
I have yet to read your book or the Boldrin and Levine book, but just reading your blog posts [e.g. There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property; What's Wrong with Theft?] and the discussions they generate has convinced me of your position. It seems to me that the only question worth considering
is Are ideas property? If an IP proponent could give a good answer to this question, we could have a good debate. But the replies to your argument seem desperate and incoherent. I'm an amateur choreographer so I know that IP is not necessary for creation. Dancers take movement where ever we can find it. The first person to get a copyright on walking would own the dance community and the world, in fact. The first routine I put together used movement from several other performers. If IP were to apply to dance, all dance communities would die the next day. The dance community is experiencing the wrath of IP regarding music, however. We have had problems with the music that we use. Promoters who videotape our performances are reluctant to sell the DVDs because the artists might sue the promoters if their music is used. YouTube is censoring videos in which it can recognize the music in the background. I find this ridiculous. If I have already paid my $0.99 for your song and created a visual expression of the music, from whence do you get the right to now "own" my expression of your song? I think that my dance experience instilled in me a skepticism about IP, but still I find your intellectual arguments indisputable.
Su argumento me recuerda a otro que desarrolló Tom Palmer en uno de los mejores ensayos anti-propiedad intelectual: Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects (pdf)
If the foundation of the natural right to ownership is ownership in one’s self, however, then claims to own ideas or other ideal objects conflict with this right to self-ownership, for such a claim is no less than a claim of the right to control how another uses his body. When one claims to own a dance step, for example, one claims that no one else can so move his body as to perform this dance, and therefore that one has a right of dominion over the bodies of everyone else. Similarly, a copyright over a musical composition means that others cannot use their mouths to blow air in certain sequences and in certain ways into musical instruments they own without obtaining the permission of the copyright holder, Thus the real objects the copyright holder controls are the body and instruments of the other musicians, The same holds true of a patent governing the combination of a group of chemicals or the arrangement of the parts of a fishhook.
