Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I agree with you, but I didn't really want to re-open the argument of whether copyright infringement is technically theft or not. My primary point was that I think - maybe - pwalker8 objected to calling copyright property because of the (potential) confusion I discuss in the previous post. This would explain what otherwise - to me - seems like an attempt to say the sky is not blue.
But once pwalker8 understands that defining copyright as property does not affect the argument over whether copyright infringement is theft, then maybe the sky can go back to being blue.
|
No copyright infringement has nothing to do with the idea of copyright as property, though the fact that it's an entirely different set of case law with very different enforcement mechanisms and penalties than thief per se supports the idea that copyright is not property.
The copyright as property rhetorical device is purely about selling the idea that the government granted monopoly should be extended ad infinitum. So far, it doesn't include a push to change the enforcement mechanisms, though I wouldn't be shocked if it was the next step.
As far as support of the definition that I use, all one has to do is look in a dictionary pre 1970's. Even intangible property was defined as stocks and bonds, IP was added later. The push to expand the term property to intellectual property didn't really take hold in the US until the 70's, which is oddly enough when the push for the US to sign the Berne Convention and get protections for US movies and music world wide.
Perhaps the sky is blue, but you are arguing it's green because you are color blind and can't tell the difference between the two (had a teacher with blue/green color blindness).