[gmw]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And yet when you use a term, then it comes with all the connotations associated by the general public even if it might have different connotations when used as a term of art within the community of finance and accounting. In other industries such as entertainment, property might mean someone under contract and have absolutely nothing to do with actual ownership.

Which is why I have repeatedly made it clear, and made it clear that I made it clear, what sense of the word I was using. Anyway, you can easily see why someone under contract is referred to as property - the derivation seems obvious and supportive of the idea that property means a thing owned.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's why there is a saying in the world of debate, if I can define the terms, I win the debate. This is, of course, the purpose of the term Intellectual Property, it's an attempt to win the debate and it's done a pretty good job of that.

And that gives you permission to make it up as you go? I have given multiple sources demonstrating the common use of property to include intangibles and you have give me ... <crickets chirping in the dark>

Originally Posted by pwalker8

A more proper term might be limited ownership, i.e. you have the right to use or dispose of something within a small subset of normal ownership rights, which is why I keep using the lease example since it is a more correct analogy for copyright than property. Copyright is more correctly understood by understanding the history of copyright and why copyright originally began.

So, like Richard Stallman, you want to present the argument: the other side are making up definitions to sell their agenda. The real meaning of the word is <something else>, which is in no way us making up definitions to sell our agenda.

Yeah, right. You are, whether it's fair or right or not, facing the already established use of the term, and the already established treatment (in financial circles) of copyright as property. I don't find the conspiracy theory explanation for property very convincing, I'm much more inclined to believe the word was a natural fit given all the existing intangible property that was being deal with.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Copyright was originally an attempt by the various monarchies to control the flow of information following the printing press. Authorship had nothing to do with copyrights at that time. It wasn't until 1710 that copyright was associated with the author.

There is a very explicit quid pro quo in copyright law. This quid pro quo, or social contract if you will, is included in the Statute of Anne in 1710 as well as the US Constitution, says to encourage "learned men to compose and write useful books", they got a finite right to copy and recopy those works. Since the primary purpose was to make useful books available, that copyright was of a very limited term (14 years) and then went into the public domain, thus ensuring access to the work for all. Of course, given the speed of travel now verses back then, an equivalent period now be much shorter, not the much, much longer period we have now.

The idea of copyright as an author's property is a very new idea, relatively speaking, and begun with Victor Hugo's rent seeking venture in the Berne Convention.

And yet it is not copyright from 1710 nor 1886 that we are discussing. It is copyright as it is today and how we'd like to change it.

And, according to Wikipedia, if the argument about the word "property" fails then even Richard Stallman seems inclined to agree with Leebase: "if copyright were a natural right nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".

Although the key problem in there is "natural right" - which we all know copyright is not. It's a made up thing. But you have to be really careful here - what makes real estate property a natural right? Absolutely nothing. Not that many centuries ago you had no right to own land unless you were the monarch.