Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
In my view, the reasons you give for IP and PP not being the same (physicality, builder analogies and so on), are distractions. As such they clutter the debate unnecessarily, and obscure the real reasons why we should consider treating IP differently - not because we must, but because there are genuinely useful reasons for doing so.
|
I think that it's both because we must, i.e. one is a physical object and the other is an expression of an idea, as well as there are useful reasons for doing so. One must keep in mind that the term IP was coined to make it sound like things like copyright were the same physical property, not because it was an accurate expression of what they are (i.e. a government granted monopoly on making copies of a book or manufacturing a device [like copyright, patents originally had nothing to do with who actually had the idea or created the device]).