Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
No, it means address the distinctions. Don't pretend you are addressing them by making meaningless statements like "it's not property."
Bull. The term is at least two centuries old, and the concept was the there from the beginning of the idea of copyright whether it was called that or not.
And even if it were so, exactly where on the time spectrum between 40-50 years and "thousands of years" will you give up and accept the terms everyone else uses?
No we don't forget. But we realize things change.
Many of us want to restore terms closer to those old ones.
The way to get them is by demonstrating that it's better for society and lobbying or electing legislators who agree.
Pretending you can change anything by renaming IP doesn't help any one.
Is this how you'd have addressed slavery? "No people! Slaves are _not_ property! They are a government granted lifetime monopoly on indentured servitude!"
How does that help? How does that further the cause?
I think I'm done with you.
Someone else will hopefully address other public disservices you post.
ApK
|
What part of "as it is currently used" don't you understand? The term itself was coined back in the 1700's, but the current usage (i.e. as a term to describe any idea that a company wants protection for) only goes back to the 60's and 70's
Here is an interesting article by William Fisher for the Harvard law school on the growth of Intellectual Property
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/history.html
And no, pointing out the history of intellectual property doesn't equal wanting to bring slavery back.
It simply means that I actually did some research in the area.