Quote:
Originally Posted by barryem
It's a very different thing to say that principles concerning personal property could also work with intellectual property than it is to say that they're the same thing. Therefore that profoundly ignorant person might actually have a cogent and rational argument.
The usual terminology for offering an argument against a modified version of someone else's argument is "straw man argument. Even though I'm profoundly ignorant and unable to form a cogent and rational argument I do know that. And since I was one of those who suggested that those things physical and intellectual property have in common might be useful in this discussion I'm glad I made you laugh.
|
No strawman.
There are those in this thread who have suggested that IP and PP should be
treated the same. That is what I find hard to take seriously. IP and PP having things in common that might be useful in the discussion is an entirely different proposition to IP and PP being
treated the same. They are different and absolutely
can not be treated the same. It simply isn't possible to do so.
Further, I also stated I found the idea that one could be so profoundly ignorant to not understand that they are different to be a difficult idea to believe itself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by barryem
I have my opinions on copyright and they're pretty strongly held but I do realize that they're just opinions. I'm willing to accept that intelligent people can and do disagree with me. I've seen much honest thought on both sides of this discussion. And a bit of chicanery here and there as well.
Barry
|
I'm glad you have found honest thought on both sides. So have I.
What I haven't seen is any rational argument as to why IP should be
treated the same as PP. Particularly when copyright isn't even about protecting an idea but about protecting the right to make money from the
work done to express that idea in a specific format. If anything, copyright should be treated the same as any other work protections.