Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
While there can be differences in interpretation between contexts (in this case we have legal, accounting/economics and conversational contexts), I am not aware of any substantial differences in the case of "property" nor "assets". Property is a thing* or things owned, assets are property of value**. Everywhere I look I see confirmation of these basic definitions. If there is a real difference in interpretation in some locales then that would be interesting to know, but such a claim needs substantiation.
* If you want to claim copyright is not a "thing" then perhaps you can tell us what you think it is that could conceivably not be a thing. Beware: even the 1925 American dictionary I have here includes "conceived to be distinct" in its definition of "thing" - thingness was not limited to the physical realm even then.
** Sure, legal and accounting add the requirement that assets are able to be used to pay liabilities, but that just means there are some things we might speak of as assets in general conversation that are not legally part of our assets. That doesn't apply to this conversation.
|
Once again, the point is that words can be used as a rhetorical device. The term intellectual property is a rhetorical device meant to leave the reader/listener with the idea that an idea/government granted monopoly should be treated the same as what most consider property such as land or a house, i.e. the copyright holder has a moral right to that monopoly for longer and longer periods of time.
Way back when the original statute of Anne was debated, one of the rhetorical devices used to get sympathy for the idea was one of Milton's heirs was in the poor house. If only you pass this, then such situations would not occur, they said, ignoring the fact that Milton himself sold Paradise Lost to a publisher and even if the law had been in place when Milton wrote Paradise Lost, the heir would have been no better off. Thus, the poor widow and orphans argument that still gets trotter out for extending copyright yet again goes all the way back to the beginning of assigning a copyright to the actual author rather than to some well connected printer or publisher which was the origin of copyright.