![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 6th, 2015 10:32 amI have retained exactly zilch from two weeks' worth of CopyrightX lectures.
Bar one thing: Locke's fairness theory of property (summed up as best I understand it: he who puts work into something owns it), though perhaps applicable to intellectual property from an ecofeminist (though not so much a capitalist) perspective, is bullshit wrt physical property from both the ecofeminist and the capitalist perspectives!
That takes talent.
(The story Locke uses to explain the theory starts with Alice appropriating "wild, uncultivated" land and making it "productive", and relies on the moral intuition of the listener to regard Bob taking the land from Alice—but not Alice taking the land from nature/the world/everyone else—as wrong.)
Bar one thing: Locke's fairness theory of property (summed up as best I understand it: he who puts work into something owns it), though perhaps applicable to intellectual property from an ecofeminist (though not so much a capitalist) perspective, is bullshit wrt physical property from both the ecofeminist and the capitalist perspectives!
That takes talent.
(The story Locke uses to explain the theory starts with Alice appropriating "wild, uncultivated" land and making it "productive", and relies on the moral intuition of the listener to regard Bob taking the land from Alice—but not Alice taking the land from nature/the world/everyone else—as wrong.)