In the nineteenth century, many American ranchers opposed “enclosure”—the privatization of the open ranges. They argued that the ranges were “common property” and therefore, should remain open to all for use.
Today, a different group is opposing “enclosure” of information. They argue that information is “common property” and should not be protected by intellectual property rights.
For example, Nancy Kranich, in a report titled The Information Commons: A Public Policy Report, writes that “much online content is now wrapped, packaged, and restricted − treated as private rather than common property. This ‘walled garden’ or ‘enclosure’ online creates an inequitable and often inaccessible information marketplace.”
Most Americans would laugh at the absurdity of such a claim if it were applied to the material realm. Access to I-Phones, BMWs, and flat-screen televisions is restricted—to those who are willing and able to pay for them. This is true of any product or service. Yet, commoners (those who advocate for “the commons”) would have us believe that intellectual property is fundamentally different from material property.
The fact is, property—whether material or intellectual—comes into being by the thought and effort of some individual. If the products of these innovators are not theirs to use and dispose of as they choose, they are nothing more than slaves. And that is precisely what the commoners want. They want to control the innovative, the creative, and the productive.