Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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. [...]
|
I assumed you would be familiar with Richard Stallman's arguments since they are pretty much identical to yours - right down to saying "its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". See Wikipedia on
Intellectual Property: Criticisms.
What do you think the government granted monopoly is about if not business/financial?
The OED says of monopoly: "Exclusive possession of the trade in some article of merchandise". See that "trade" in there? You know, trade as in business, as in buy and sell stuff, generally with money. That's why the financial definitions are central to this argument, because this has always been about money. (
Of course, you may prefer to make up your own definition, since you don't seem to like any of the ones I've been giving. 
)
I am not calling copyright "property" on a whim, and I have proved that
I am not making this up. Other than a few dissenters noted in the criticisms link above, it is common to refer to copyright and other rights as property, most especially in financial circles. It common enough that even general dictionary definitions at least allow for such intangibles.