Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I figure this post is missing either a smiley face or a tin-foil hat. Which is it?
|
Neither. One of the most effective rhetorical devices is to get the other side to accept your definitions. Once you convince everyone that a government granted monopoly is actually property, then the idea that this monopoly ought to be treated just like any other property, i.e. it belongs to you and your heirs forever, is a fairly logical next step.
The term Intellectual Property, to describe government granted monopolies, was coined by a lawyer. Arguing to extend a government granted monopoly (known as rent seeking in economic terms) doesn't play nearly as well with the public as arguing that because it's property, it should be extended.
Copyright started as a government granted monopoly to printers not to authors. Authors didn't get copyright protection until 1710. Rhetorical language has shaped the debate on copyright since the beginning. Daniel Defoe first used the term "pirate" to describe someone who made a copy of his work during the debate leading to the passage of Statute of Anne. Since people knew real pirates at the time, it was a rhetorical device to paint people who engaged in such perfectly legal actions (at the time) as villains.