"Copyright is ownership"

That was part of what I came across as a response to my comment I made on substack.

My comment in part stated that copyright is an implied force( "Don't copy this or else").

Initially I was asking if they felt justified in using force against someone else if they copied a book they owned without their permission. Unfortunately the response was steering into a different direction where arguments are mainly about defining and coming to terms on the meanings of words.

It's not something I want to do in wasting my time and energy arguing back and forth with someone over the internet. I did disagree with the conclusion, "copyright is ownership", but because I realized we were using the word ownership very differently, I'd rather make something more interesting than that instead.

In the end you will either disagree with me or it will turn into something that will keep you scratching your head into chronic baldness.

Defining Ownership Through Observation

Man works to survive and thrive. Along the way, he creates things he calls his own. But what actually makes something yours?

Since this stems from a conversation about a copyright claim over a book, made publicly by some fellow commentator spreading very useful websites few know about, I'm going to keep it about books. Though, this doesn't just relate to only books, because this can apply even to ideas. In practical terms, it's just about anything created by the self.

Okay! Short and to the point here.

What is ownership and what makes a thing yours?

To answer that, first I think it will help to start with something almost everyone has witnessed or experienced themselves. Childhood.

A child doesn't learn about ownership by reading laws, dictionaries, or philosophy books. Before that even happens or even existed as e have now, they learn through observation and experience.

One child picks up a toy.

Another child wants it.

"That's mine!"

"Nuh uh!"

"But I want it!"

"I need it more!"

Sometimes they pull on it. Sometimes they cry. Sometimes an adult steps in. Before they ever understand words like property, rights, or ownership, they've already encountered conflict over possession. Whether they comprehend it fully is irrelevant. They've experienced it. You've experienced it.

Eventually, those constant social conflicts begin to settle into something more stable throughout the growth cycle. Through repeated interactions, children learn what the people around them generally recognize and respect. They begin to notice that if someone is already using something or has already claimed it, most others expect that claim to be respected.

In other words, ownership isn't learned as a definition first. It's learned as a social pattern.

Over time, those patterns become customs, culture, expectations. It ends up becoming shared beliefs about how people ought to behave if they want to live together without constant conflict.

This isn't unique to toys only.

The same basic idea applies to tools, clothing, homes, land, and just about anything people create or make use of. Society gradually develops informal and formal ways of recognizing who gets to keep what. Largely, because perpetual conflict is exhausting and cooperation tends to produce better outcomes. It's a choice between what is more pleasurable over suffering.

None of this however has actually answered the question. What we have described is how people begin to learn to recognize ownership through observational behavior, but we still haven't answered what ownership itself is.

Those are not the same thing.

If someone says, "That's mine," what observable fact makes that statement true?

Is it possession?

You are physically holding or controlling something, but possession alone fails immediately, because you can be holding something temporarily and still lose it. You can(not saying you should) also take something that wasn’t “yours” and still possess it. But the opposite is also true, if it can be taken was it ever yours to begin with?

Creation?

Sure you can draw a fine piece of art, build a desk, an idea etc., but making something doesn’t guarantee you can keep it
and thus it doesn’t stop others from taking or copying it.

First use/claim?

You used it first, or was there first, but being “first” only matters if others recognize it and without recognition, it’s just a historical fact, not a binding one.

Recognition by other people?

You would think "your property" would be well protected here but for how long? Sure they agree now but what if they change their minds? What about other groups? Even outsiders may ignore it entirely.

Something else entirely?

Or maybe all the above?

All of these things describe conditions where ownership tends to exist, but none of them independently are ownership. So we’re being forced into a tighter question.

If ownership is not possession, not creation, not first use, and not recognition alone…
then what is it actually referring to in reality?

in every case where we say “this is mine,” something else is always present underneath. An invisible line between what is allowed and what is not allowed.

As I have observed, ownership seems to exist wherever there is a socially enforced boundary around use or control.

“don’t take that”
“stop him”
“give it back”
“you can use this, but not that”
Etc

But even that is still not a final answer.

Mayhaps property doesn't exist but only the illusion of it through this worldwide social custom. What I mean is that "property" is not a "thing"(independent object like a tree or a rock) in nature, but a social pattern backed by force. It's an emergent social phenomenon. It is human behavior what creates that enforced boundary. It's what helps distinguish between what's mine and what is not.

In short, property is just the interpretation of that behavior. It isn’t an object in reality but a stable illusion produced by repeated coordination and enforcement.

Not “illusion” as in fake or meaningless,
but “illusion” as in something the mind treats as a single entity, even though it is made of many interacting actions and agreements.

Money, nations, "authority", value itself, none of which, exist as physical objects, yet they reliably structure behavior. What we call property is not a fundamental feature of reality, but a pattern of human behavior that becomes so stable we treat it as if it were a thing.

A property is yours..., until it isn't.

Something is “yours” while others don’t take it or don’t successfully take it. The moment that condition breaks, the label stops matching reality. So instead of ownership being a permanent property of an object, it behaves more like a temporary status condition:

stable while maintained
gone when not maintained

If “mine” is always conditional, then ownership is not something embedded in any object at all, but it’s simply something that exists only while a set of behaviors continue to hold. In other words:

“property is a continuing outcome, not a permanent fact.”

That is what I can actually observe happening between people and their relationship with each other around the idea of "property".

Now I can already hear the obvious question.

"What if someone steals your wallet? Does it instantly stop being yours?"

My answer is yes. Not because I think the thief is justified, but because I think the event reveals what ownership depended on all along.

Think about it.

What made the wallet yours? Was there some invisible property hidden inside it? Or was it simply your belief, shared by everyone around you, that you would continue possessing and controlling it?

As long as that relationship held, everyone called it "your wallet." Then someone successfully takes it and disappears forever. Eventually people stop saying, "That's your wallet," and instead say things like, "Damn... there goes your wallet," or "It's gone forever."

Notice something.

Nobody watched property leave the wallet. The wallet didn't physically change. What changed was human behavior. People simply adjusted to a different reality.

From my perspective, the theft didn't destroy ownership. It exposed what ownership always depended on. The object never contained property as though it were some natural ingredient. The idea of property only existed while people continued recognizing and enforcing that relationship.

This doesn't mean theft is good, nor am I saying people should go around taking each other's things. That's an entirely different discussion. I'm asking something much more fundamental.

Is property something that exists independently in reality, or is it a social pattern that people continuously maintain?

If it's the latter, then maybe you never possessed "property" the way most people imagine. Maybe what you possessed was an object within a social system that generally respected your claim to it. Once that pattern no longer holds, nothing physical has disappeared except the object itself. The idea of property didn't vanish because it was never inside the object to begin with.

Maybe property was always a relationship between people rather than a feature of things.

From my perspective, I believe it is just that. A social construct backed by force, culture and agreed upon customs.