Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
ETA: I am surprised because now it seems you don't actually believe I am incorrect, you simply think my points to address the argument I was responding to are not important. You certainly seem to imply that you think IP and PP are actually different or at the very least it doesn't matter if they are or not. Furthermore, you actually agree with my assertion that they should be treated differently. Neither of which points you made prior to the post to which I replied with the above quoted post.[...]
|
I thought the argument you presented was worse than not important, it was - as a I said - an unwarranted distraction from the real reasons.
As for "Neither of which points you made", I offer the following examples (enclosed in spoiler tags so others don't have to suffer the repetition)...
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
[...] Just because IP and PP are not identical does not mean they are not at all comparable. [...]
|
I actually thought "not identical" fairly clearly indicated that I think there are differences. That was my first post on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
[...] Land isn't the same thing as water, isn't the same thing as farm produce and isn't the same thing as copyright. They can all be property, but they all have their own peculiarities and so differences in the way they are treated under law. [...]
|
And there I was admitting that many different types of property are different and treated differently under law. Second post on this thread. Is that not clear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
[...] There is no need for weird and wonderful arguments about protecting one or the other with guns or rocks, that stuff is just a distraction, and entirely irrelevant. [...]
|
And here I was explaining that your arguments were distractions and irrelevant (ie. "irrelevant" means they don't matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
[...] I have no quarrel with the idea that various sorts of IP should be treated differently from each other, and differently to the various sorts of other property. The law has different provisions for different sorts of property, tangible and non-tangible, because the social objectives are different. [...]
|
And there I state quite flatly that I have no quarrel with different IP being treated differently from each other etc. Hello?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
[...] I believe the similarities are such that it is a societal choice whether we treat copyright the same as a physical property and offer eternal copyright. I don't believe we should, but I don't see it as impossible. [...]
|
And another statement that I don't believe we should treat copyright the same as physical property.
All those were taken from before the offending post.
I think we should call it quits. We seem to be going backwards rather than forwards.