Introduction
"Mine!" is one of the first words toddlers learn to say, and it's a concept that continues to shape our lives well into adulthood. In his book "Mine!", author Michael A. Heller explores the hidden rules of ownership that govern our world and influence our behavior in ways we often don't realize.
From streaming services to airplane seats, from intellectual property to body parts, the concept of ownership is constantly evolving and being redefined. This book takes readers on a journey through the complex and often surprising landscape of ownership, revealing how it affects our daily lives and shapes our society.
The Power of Ownership Design
Influencing Behavior Through Ownership Rules
Ownership design is a powerful tool used by businesses and governments to shape our behavior without us even noticing. It's particularly effective when dealing with scarce resources. For example, have you ever been stuck in traffic and longingly eyed the empty high-occupancy vehicle lane? That's ownership design at work, encouraging carpooling and more efficient use of road space.
Another example is frequent flyer programs at airports. These programs offer perks like easy boarding and lounge access, influencing travelers to choose certain airlines and spend more money. In both cases, the rules of ownership are carefully crafted to guide our decisions and actions.
HBO's Strategic Approach to Password Sharing
Streaming services like HBO provide an interesting case study in ownership design. While password sharing is technically piracy, HBO chooses not to crack down on this practice. Why? Because they're playing the long game. By allowing users to share passwords, HBO hopes that these "illegal" streamers will become hooked on their content. The idea is that when these users start earning more money, they'll eventually buy their own subscriptions.
This approach demonstrates how companies can use ownership rules flexibly to their advantage, sometimes even tolerating rule-breaking if it serves their long-term goals.
The Duke Campout: Creating Brand Loyalty Through Ownership
The Duke University Campout is a prime example of how institutions can use ownership design to create strong emotional connections. Each year, graduate students camp outside the basketball stadium for a chance to win courtside season tickets. This event does more than just allocate tickets; it creates lasting memories and fosters a sense of belonging among students.
The result? Students who participate are more likely to become loyal alumni and donors. Moreover, the die-hard fans who win tickets become enthusiastic brand ambassadors during televised games, boosting the university's image nationwide. This clever ownership design turns a simple ticket allocation into a powerful tool for building brand loyalty and securing future support.
The Changing Face of "First Come, First Served"
Line Standing and the Supreme Court
The traditional "first come, first served" rule is being challenged in various ways. Take, for example, the practice of line standing for Supreme Court hearings in Washington, D.C. While attendance is free, seats are limited, leading people to camp out for days to secure a spot. However, just before the doors open, a curious exchange often occurs: well-dressed individuals swap places with those at the front of the line.
This is the result of the line-standing business. Companies pay people minimum wage to hold spots in line, which they then sell to wealthy clients for thousands of dollars. While this practice may seem unfair, it creates jobs for those who need them, highlighting the complex nature of ownership and access in modern society.
Disney's FastPass+ and VIP Tours
Disney World faced a similar challenge with long wait times for popular rides. Their solution was the FastPass+ system, which allows visitors to reserve time slots for select rides. This system changed the traditional first-come, first-served model, allowing people to plan their day more efficiently and spend more time (and money) in other parts of the park.
Disney took this concept further with their Private VIP Tour, where groups can pay thousands of dollars for a guide who helps them skip lines discreetly. By limiting the number of these tours, Disney maintains a balance between maximizing profit and preventing resentment among regular visitors. This demonstrates how ownership design can be used to manage scarce resources while catering to different customer segments.
The Blurred Lines of Ownership
Possession vs. Ownership
We often assume that possession equals ownership, but this isn't always the case. From jackets reserving seats in movie theaters to disabled parking badges, we encounter and respond to possession claims daily. However, the legal definition of ownership can be quite different from our instinctual understanding.
The Law of Adverse Possession
The law of adverse possession illustrates how possession can turn into ownership over time. This law explains why Native Americans can't legally reclaim land taken from them centuries ago – after a certain period, occupancy becomes recognized as legal ownership.
A striking example of this principle in action is the case of Don and Susi Kirlin in Boulder, Colorado. They bought a plot of land but left part of it undeveloped. Their neighbors, Richard McLean and Edie Stevens, used this unused portion as their own backyard for decades. When McLean and Stevens sued for ownership of the land, they initially won based on Colorado's adverse possession law, which grants ownership rights after 18 years of open and continuous possession.
Digital Ownership: Not What You Think
In the digital age, ownership has become even more complex. When you buy an e-book on Kindle, for instance, you might think you own it. In reality, you've only purchased a limited license. Amazon retains the right to remove the book from your device at any time, as demonstrated when they deleted purchased copies of George Orwell's "1984" due to a copyright dispute.
This blurring of lines between ownership and licensing is becoming increasingly common in our digital world, challenging our traditional notions of what it means to own something.
Labor and Ownership
Historical Context: The Homestead Act
The idea that labor justifies ownership has deep roots in American history. The Homestead Act of 1862 granted 160 acres of land to any American citizen who was willing to live on and improve the land for at least five years. This act codified the belief that working the land gave one the right to own it.
However, this principle wasn't applied equally. In 1823, the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans' traditional use of land for hunting, gathering, and farming didn't qualify as labor that justified ownership. This selective application of the labor principle played a significant role in the colonization of America.
Intellectual Property and Fashion
In the realm of intellectual property, the connection between labor and ownership becomes even more complex. While music and literature are protected by copyright laws, fashion designs are not. This means that companies like Zara can legally create near-exact copies of high-end designs and sell them at a fraction of the price.
The Council of Fashion Designers of America has lobbied to change this, arguing that designers should have legal ownership of their work. However, Congress has so far prioritized the interests of consumers over those of designers, allowing the fast fashion industry to thrive.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" Speech
Sometimes, intellectual property rights can extend far beyond what seems reasonable. After Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, the copyright to his famous "I Have a Dream" speech became part of his estate. It's now controlled by a for-profit company run by King's son, Dexter.
The licensing fees for using the speech are so high that even major Hollywood productions can't afford to use it. In the film "Selma," the filmmakers had to write entirely new speeches for the King character. This case raises questions about the balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing important cultural artifacts to be freely shared and discussed.
The Principle of Attachment
Air Rights and Drones
The principle of attachment – the idea that if you own something, you also own whatever is attached to it – has its roots in medieval England. The maxim "whoever owns the soil, owns up to Heaven and down to Hell" once defined property rights. However, this concept has had to evolve with technological advancements.
A century ago, courts had to rule that property owners didn't own the air above their homes, paving the way for the aviation industry. Today, we face similar challenges with drones. While some homeowners believe they have the right to shoot down drones flying over their property, the future of drone delivery services depends on resolving these ownership disputes.
Airplane Seat Reclining
The principle of attachment also comes into play in everyday situations, like the contentious issue of airplane seat reclining. Who owns the space behind your seat – you or the passenger behind you? This unresolved question leads to frequent conflicts between passengers who want to recline and those who want to protect their limited legroom.
Beachfront Property and Rising Sea Levels
Climate change is creating new challenges for the principle of attachment. In Destin, Florida, Linda Cherry enjoyed a private beach in front of her ocean-facing home for years. However, as rising sea levels eroded the coastline, the state had to replenish the beaches with new sand. Under Florida law, this new beach expansion became public property, effectively moving Cherry's private beachfront further from the water.
This case illustrates how environmental changes can alter property rights, challenging our traditional understanding of ownership by attachment.
Bodily Autonomy and Ownership
The Complexity of Body Ownership
The question of who owns your body is more complex than it might seem at first glance. Advances in medical technology, particularly in organ transplantation, have raised new questions about what parts of our bodies we can sell or donate.
In the United States, the laws governing body part sales vary widely by state and by the specific body part in question. For example, selling sexual services is legal in some Nevada counties but illegal in most other places. Bone marrow can be sold in Montana but not in Wyoming. This patchwork of regulations reflects the ongoing debate about bodily autonomy and the ethics of commodifying human body parts.
The Kidney Dilemma
The sale of kidneys is illegal almost everywhere in the world, with Iran being the sole exception. This prohibition exists despite the fact that most people can live healthy lives with just one kidney, and thousands die each year waiting for kidney transplants.
The ban on kidney sales is partly intended to protect vulnerable populations from exploitation. However, it also reflects a deeper societal discomfort with the idea of putting a price on human organs. This raises challenging ethical questions: Is it more ethical to allow people to die waiting for kidneys, or to create a regulated market that could save lives but might exploit the poor?
Balancing Ethics and Practicality
The debate over organ sales highlights the tension between ethical concerns and practical needs. While selling organs might seem to violate human dignity, it could also save many lives and potentially provide a financial lifeline for some individuals. As medical technology continues to advance, society will need to grapple with these difficult questions and find ways to balance ethical considerations with practical health needs.
Inheritance and Generational Wealth
Family Disputes and Sentimental Value
When it comes to inheritance, the sentimental value of objects can often outweigh their monetary worth. The story of Arthur and Mildred McDowell, who inherited their father's rocking chair, illustrates this point. Unable to agree on how to split the chair, they ended up in court, with a judge ruling that they should take turns possessing it for six-month periods.
This case shows how inheritance can complicate family relationships and how the law sometimes has to step in to resolve disputes over seemingly trivial items. It also demonstrates that the concept of family ownership can be just as important as individual ownership.
Trust Funds and Dynasty Trusts
Trust funds have long been a way for wealthy families to pass down assets to future generations. Traditionally, these trusts were limited by the "rule against perpetuities," which put a two-generation time limit on trusts. This rule, originating in 17th century England, was designed to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth in the hands of a few families.
However, in the 1980s, South Dakota changed the game by abolishing this rule for trusts in their state. This allowed for the creation of "dynasty trusts," which can theoretically last forever. These trusts not only allow wealth to be passed down indefinitely but also provide significant tax advantages.
South Dakota: A Haven for Wealth
South Dakota's changes to trust laws have made it a haven for wealth, both domestic and international. By 2020, South Dakota trust companies held over $350 billion in assets. The state's laws offer not just tax advantages but also strong privacy protections, making it attractive to everyone from American billionaires to foreign oligarchs.
This development raises questions about wealth inequality and the role of state laws in facilitating the concentration of wealth. It also demonstrates how ownership rules can have far-reaching effects on society, influencing the distribution of wealth across generations.
The Importance of Estate Planning
While most people won't be setting up dynasty trusts, the importance of estate planning applies to everyone. Creating a will and specifying guardians for minor children ensures that your wishes are respected after your death. Without an estate plan, the state will determine how your assets are distributed, which may not align with your intentions.
Estate planning is a way for individuals to exercise some control over ownership even after they're gone. It's an important tool for protecting your family's interests and ensuring that your legacy is preserved in the way you intend.
The Evolution of Ownership in the Digital Age
Streaming Services and Digital Rights
The rise of streaming services has fundamentally changed how we consume and own media. When you buy a physical book or DVD, you own that copy outright. But when you purchase digital content, what you're often buying is a license to access that content, not ownership of the content itself.
This shift has significant implications. For example, if a streaming service loses the rights to a show or movie, it can disappear from your library overnight. Similarly, e-books can be remotely deleted from your device, as happened with Amazon's removal of George Orwell's "1984" from Kindles due to a copyright dispute.
Social Media and Data Ownership
Social media platforms have further complicated the concept of ownership in the digital realm. When you post a photo on Instagram or Facebook, who owns that content? While you retain copyright, you grant the platform a broad license to use your content. This has led to situations where people's photos have been used in advertisements without their explicit consent.
Moreover, the data you generate through your online activities – your browsing history, likes, shares, and so on – has become a valuable commodity. Companies collect, analyze, and sell this data, raising questions about who truly owns this information about our lives and habits.
Digital Assets and Inheritance
The digital age has also created new challenges for inheritance law. What happens to your online accounts, cryptocurrencies, or digital art collections when you die? Many people now have significant digital assets, but traditional estate planning often doesn't account for these.
Some platforms have started to address this issue. For instance, Facebook allows users to designate a "legacy contact" who can manage their account after death. However, the laws and practices around digital inheritance are still evolving, leaving many questions unanswered.
The Future of Ownership
Artificial Intelligence and Ownership
As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, new ownership questions arise. If an AI creates a piece of art or writes a novel, who owns the copyright? The programmer who created the AI? The company that owns the AI? Or should AI-created works be considered public domain?
These questions are not just theoretical. AI-generated art has already been sold at major auctions, and AI writing tools are becoming increasingly common. As AI continues to advance, society will need to grapple with these complex ownership issues.
Virtual and Augmented Reality
Virtual and augmented reality technologies are creating entirely new spaces where ownership concepts apply. In virtual worlds, people buy and sell virtual real estate, clothing for avatars, and other digital assets. These transactions often involve real money, but the ownership is purely digital.
As these technologies become more integrated into our daily lives, questions about ownership in virtual spaces will become increasingly important. For instance, if a company creates a popular augmented reality game that overlays content on the real world, who owns the right to place virtual objects in specific physical locations?
The Sharing Economy and Temporary Ownership
The rise of the sharing economy, exemplified by companies like Airbnb and Uber, has introduced new models of temporary ownership and access. These platforms allow people to monetize their assets (homes, cars) in new ways, blurring the lines between personal and commercial use.
This shift towards access over ownership is changing how people think about possessions. For younger generations, the idea of owning a car or a home might be less appealing than having flexible access to these resources when needed. This trend could have significant implications for traditional industries and for how we structure our cities and economies.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Evolution of Ownership
As we've seen throughout this exploration of Michael A. Heller's "Mine!", the concept of ownership is far more complex and fluid than we often realize. From the air above our homes to the data we generate online, from our bodily organs to our digital assets, the rules of ownership are constantly being negotiated and redefined.
Understanding these hidden rules of ownership is crucial for navigating our modern world. They shape our behavior, influence our economy, and reflect our values as a society. As technology continues to advance and our world becomes increasingly interconnected, the questions surrounding ownership will only become more complex and more important.
The key takeaway from "Mine!" is that ownership is not a fixed concept, but a social construct that we collectively create and modify. By understanding how ownership works, we can better participate in the ongoing conversations about how it should work. Whether it's debating the ethics of organ sales, considering the implications of AI-generated content, or simply deciding who has the right to recline their airplane seat, these ownership questions touch every aspect of our lives.
As we move forward, it's clear that we'll need to continue adapting our understanding of ownership to meet new challenges. The rules that worked for physical property may not apply neatly to digital assets or virtual spaces. The balance between individual rights and societal needs may need to be recalibrated in the face of global challenges like climate change.
Ultimately, "Mine!" reminds us that the rules of ownership are not set in stone. They are a reflection of our collective choices and values. By understanding these rules, we can work to shape them in ways that create a fairer, more efficient, and more sustainable world for everyone. The question of "What's mine?" may never have a simple answer, but by engaging with it thoughtfully, we can build a better understanding of our rights, our responsibilities, and our shared future.