Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
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.
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>
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.
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.
|
No idea what Richard Stallman has to do with anything or why you are bringing him up. My point is that you are using a term of art in a situation that it doesn't apply. We aren't talking finances here. You are the one who is trying to redefine the term for rhetorical purposes. I'm simply pointing out that calling something property when it isn't, doesn't make it property. It's a government granted monopoly, not property.
Not sure what natural rights has to do with anything. The term natural rights is a debating point and was coined as a counter to the divine right of kings to rule. Of course, the natural rights that Thomas Jefferson invoked in the Declaration of Independence was Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Locke said it was Life, Liberty and Property. As far as I know, the right to hold a copyright forever and a day is not something that has been asserted as a natural right. Heck, Locke died before the Statute of Anne. Copyright granted to authors didn't exist when he was writing.