Jefferson Debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jefferson Debate is an online adage related to intellectual versus tangible property law. It is in a similar vein to Godwin's Law.

On August 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Isaac McPherson, part of which read:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

Jefferson's argument was that by definition, intellectual property does not share many of the attributes of tangible property. As there are significant differences between these concepts of property, it is fallacious to use analogies comparing one with the other or use examples interchangeably. To do so would be akin to comparing apples and oranges.

The Jefferson Debate can be summarized thus:

As an online discussion on intellectual property grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving physical property approaches 1. As the concept of intellectual property is so far removed from that of physical property (as stated by Jefferson), it should be obvious that one party to the debate does not have a sufficient grasp of the ideas involved to continue a rational argument.

An example of a poor analogy in this context would be "downloading an .mp3 file from the internet without authorization from the copyright holder is like stealing a CD from a record store".

This is a common logical fallacy that draws an overly broad likeness between these two acts (see fallacies of definition). In downloading the .mp3 without authorization, the downloader is not paying for the item. The shoplifter who steals a CD is also not paying for the item. The downloader however, has not deprived anyone of tangible property and therefore the two situations must be considered separately. Someone using this analogy is either attempting to manipulate the emotions of their audience to invoke sympathy for the artist whose work is being copied, or does not fully understand the differences between physical and intellectual property.

On encountering a person who uses an example such as the one above, the intelligent debater should realize that they are not actually discussing the benefits or pitfalls of particular copyright issues - they are engaging in the Jefferson Debate, where the focus must be to first find a common ground for both parties to base their arguments on before a rational discussion can occur. This common ground should take note of Jefferson's observations on the differences between the two types of property and how those properties may be owned.

[edit] Rejection of the claim

The problem with the example given is that an .mp3 file is an actual thing. It is not merely a thought or idea about code, it is actual code. The fact that this code can be perfectly duplicated in a trivial manner does not change the fact that it is a thing and not an idea. One cannot "think" an .mp3 file into existence. It must be physically created. One does not load a player with "thoughts." It is loaded with physical data. The fact that the file exists independently outside of all minds indicates that it is more than a thought or idea.

The question of whether or not "downloading an .mp3" is the same as "stealing a CD" is not answered by invocation of "Jefferson Debate." Thus, anybody who invokes "Jefferson Debate" in a discussion either is attempting to shut down debate, in the process denigrating the other side as intellectually sub-standard (which is a variant on argument ad hominem), or does not understand the differences between physical things and mental abstractions.