Yes -- I hesitate even to use the term "intellectual property" because of the
possible misunderstandings. To be clear: I oppose the granting of
monopolies, maintained by force, as in the patent system. I view this exactly
as you do: as a restriction of your rights to use your own property.
To me, intellectual property has nothing to do with owning "ideas." I think
purely in terms of physics -- mere arrangements of atoms and electrons. For
example, when I publish computer source code, I think about that act in very primitive physical terms, as follows.
I publish my code on a server. The physical particles of that server
are now arranged in a different way. I have also physically configured
the server so that another individual somewhere in the universe can
observe its structure, up to a point.
When the other individual observes the state of the server, she alters
the physical structure of a device that she owns, for example a digital
computer or her own brain. That device is her property.
So, by publishing the code in that way, I have taken an explicit, deliberate,
and voluntary action which enabled the other individual to alter the physical
state of a device she owns in a specific way. That device was her property
before she altered it, and it remains her property after the she altered it.
If I did not want that individual to alter her property in that way,
I should not have made it possible. It was my choice.
I concur with your emphasis on the right of contract. After all, that is how people transfer property rights between each other. All I am saying that so-called "intellectual" property should be no different -- since it too is all about the configuration and movement of physical devices.
To me, intellectual property has nothing to do with owning "ideas." I think purely in terms of physics -- mere arrangements of atoms and electrons. For example, when I publish computer source code, I think about that act in very primitive physical terms, as follows.
I publish my code on a server. The physical particles of that server are now arranged in a different way. I have also physically configured the server so that another individual somewhere in the universe can observe its structure, up to a point.
When the other individual observes the state of the server, she alters the physical structure of a device that she owns, for example a digital computer or her own brain. That device is her property.
So, by publishing the code in that way, I have taken an explicit, deliberate, and voluntary action which enabled the other individual to alter the physical state of a device she owns in a specific way. That device was her property before she altered it, and it remains her property after the she altered it. If I did not want that individual to alter her property in that way, I should not have made it possible. It was my choice.
I concur with your emphasis on the right of contract. After all, that is how people transfer property rights between each other. All I am saying that so-called "intellectual" property should be no different -- since it too is all about the configuration and movement of physical devices.