Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
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. |
Oh, I know who he is, Gnu software and copyleft, but his ideas are certainly not what I am advocating. If he's making the same point about terminology, then it's because the point is one that's been around for a very long time. Various words have connotations in addition to the technical definitions. The words you use can draw an emotional response from the audience.
You are trying to expand the definition of finance to include everything. A term of art is used by an industry. Copyright might be about making sure authors get paid, but it's not about the financial industry.