Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Perhaps you'd feel a little differently if you depended on intellectual property rights for your livelyhood.
I have a right, as an author, to benefit from my work for AT LEAST my lifetime. I also feel that I should be able to pass on the "fruits" of my work to my descendents, just as I can with my other property. I honestly see no rational reason why "intellectual" property should be treated any differently.
|
Sorry, you do not. Intellectual property goes back to the Statue of Anne (1714?). It has always been granted for a
limited period to encourage the creation of more intellectual property. This was well described by McCauley to Parliment in 1841. It was (and is) still a limited monopoly, not a piece of property. Since it is
not property, the rules of property don't apply. Totally different rules, for totally different reasons. Yes, there is overlap between the two set of rules, but that does not make them the same. Perhaps we shouldn't use the term Intellectual
Property, as it is not property. It was called that to make more easily understood by the general public.