Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Hold it! No, no and no. A Mortgage is not a property. A mortgage, under law, is a financial instrument which is secured by property. That's not the same thing. [...]
Hitch
|
I don't know enough law to argue the point "under law", and I can see that mortgages, being contracts, may exist where simple ownership does not apply. However, it is (or was) common enough for mortgages to exist were one side is said to own the mortgage. Thus, under the English language definition of "property", even if not the law, a mortgage can be "the thing owned" - which is all that is required for me to call it "property" in a non-legal sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
I see, so disagreement with you equals tin foil hats. I must have simply imagined the US extending copyright in 1976 from 28+28 to 75 or life+50, and then extending it again in 1998 to 95/120 or life+70. Gee so glad to hear that it was all my tin foil hat that made me imagine all of that.
|
No, it's not disagreement that makes me think of tin-foil hats, it's statements like this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
[...] The copyright as property rhetorical device is purely about selling the idea that the government granted monopoly should be extended ad infinitum. [...]
|
with no evidence to back it up. This statement shouts "conspiracy theory" to me. Show me evidence that that sentence more than a "rhetorical device" itself and I'll happily agree that tin-foil hats can be removed.