Quote:
Originally Posted by HamsterRage
I know that you're just taking that to absurd metaphysical extremes, but I think you're making my point for me.
Using the term "Intellectual Property" is just a semantic twist designed to confuse the ownership of ideas with that of physical property so that the same moral and ethical concepts can be applied across the board. Try to pull the same trick from the other direction (that physical property is really just an artificial concept) and you're obviously....well...just pulling the same trick.
As a practical matter, physical property and ideas are completely different things, and society's motivation for protecting them are also completely different. I'm having difficulty seeing how trying to blur the line between them is going to help further any discussion on the subject.
|
As I said before, an "idea" is not intellectual property, and is not protected. An idea of a building is not a building; an idea of a picture is not a painting; an idea of a story is not a book. It's only when those ideas take concrete form - in the shape of the building, the painting, or the book, that they become something that is "protectable".