I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP.
Drop the "intellectual" part of "intellectual property" and that's exactly what AirBNB is doing - tenants are literally using property that isn't theirs (they've leased it, but they don't own it)[0] and are making money off it.
And in doing so, they are also impacting others' property rights, since the externalities of short-term tenancy are borne by neighbors, not by the person who lists a whole-apartment rental on AirBNB.
[0] And given how hard the music industry has been pushing the line "you don't own the music you buy; you're only leasing rights to access it" for digital downloads (not just streaming), this isn't really that different a situation.
I agree, but that part of Airbnb's usage pattern is bound to change, and the service will easily survive that change. Grooveshark, on the other hand, can't survive a correction from proscribed uses.
Comments
Drop the "intellectual" part of "intellectual property" and that's exactly what AirBNB is doing - tenants are literally using property that isn't theirs (they've leased it, but they don't own it)[0] and are making money off it.
And in doing so, they are also impacting others' property rights, since the externalities of short-term tenancy are borne by neighbors, not by the person who lists a whole-apartment rental on AirBNB.
[0] And given how hard the music industry has been pushing the line "you don't own the music you buy; you're only leasing rights to access it" for digital downloads (not just streaming), this isn't really that different a situation.
I agree, but that part of Airbnb's usage pattern is bound to change, and the service will easily survive that change. Grooveshark, on the other hand, can't survive a correction from proscribed uses.