Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
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.
|
With the greatest respect, Ralph, you're on very shaky ground trying to use the ideas of 300 years ago to justify today's laws. For one thing, we live far longer: average life expectency in the early 18th century was under 40; today, in most western countries, it's in the mid 80s. For another, there were virtually no professional authors at that time; today, many people make a living writing, and by other "creative" activities. I can honestly see absolutely no rational justification for considering the "work" of writing a book to be trated differently from any other type of work, in terms of being able to pass on its benefits to one's family.