3 ms·
I originally wrote a much longer response, where I argued that in order to group laws together they must have something in common -- and there is nothing that i
by cyphar 8y ago
I originally wrote a much longer response, where I argued that in order to group laws together they must have something in common -- and there is nothing that is obviously in common between copyright law, patent law, and trademark law. They all protect different things in different ways, and arguing that they "protect ideas" doesn't really get you anywhere (it doesn't help clarify much -- because in what way can ideas be protected -- and it also isn't really true because those laws protect specific things rather than a more nebulous concept of an idea).
But I found that there is actually a section on the Wikipedia article for intellectual property that outlines the basic argument against the term[1]. I understand why you might find my argument silly on its face (of course people with much more stature than me have used the term "intellectual property" before, making it silly to argue that the term itself is not used anywhere of significance) -- but my main argument is that it is not really easy to come up with a single unifying idea behind "intellectual property laws". You can fairly easily come up with a unifying idea behind "fraud laws" (use of deception to profit in some fashion), or even just "property laws" (people who have a greater claim than anyone else to something are granted certain exclusive rights to it). But the fact that even the Wikipedia article for "intellectual property" cannot describe the concept without immediately breaking it down into the specific sub-rights leads me to believe that it is fairly hard to describe the common idea underlying copyright/patent/trademark laws.
I was probably too forceful in my original response, which wasn't really fitting (since I actually agreed with the general point being made).
> (^) Man, that's awkward. If only there was a term to denote that set that I just needed to name.
I mean, my point is that the only time you need to name them together is when discussing "intellectual property". When it actually comes to filing a patent, or registering a trademark, or suing over a copyright infringement claim, you never would reference those laws together. I agree it's awkward, but I disagree that you would ever need to list them like that (because they are naturally separate concepts that aren't much more related than any other legal concept).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term_%22intellectual_property%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term...
- tofof 8y agoI think what you're encountering is that most broad areas of law immediately break down into specific definitions and lists of rights. Examine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law and see that in the opening summary the article similarly resorts to naming "marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers’ rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods" while distinguishing it from the Law of the Sea -- which is again immediately defined-by-list: "navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters, and the maritime relationships between nations." Sadly, no, "most people" don't feel differently about these rights. In fact, most people cannot even differentiate one from another. This is certainly made no better by the growing use of the umbrella term, but is not caused by it. Search any online art site and find thousands of artists disclaiming "<character> is copyright <entity>", when in fact the only copyright in question is held by the author himself on the drawing he just drew. The artist intends to forswear the trademark, but cannot or at least does not distinguish these legal ideas. EDIT: Removed further arguments, because in actuality I agree with you (and this article). My original reaction was a kneejerk to your admittedly overstated claim of nonexistence. I too am concerned that greed-motivated lobbyists deliberately distort issues to strengthen intellectual property laws against the public interest. Your linked wikipedia section quotes Stallman and Lessig, as well as economists who would prefer the more descriptive term "intellectual monopoly", all objecting to to property's false implication of scarcity.
- cyphar 8y agoI broad-strokes agree with most of what you wrote (and we appear to agree on the main topic), but I did want to make one small correction: > Your linked wikipedia section quotes Stallman and Lessig, as well as economists who would prefer the more descriptive term "intellectual monopoly", all objecting to to property's false implication of scarcity. Stallman does actually believe that the term "intellectual property" to group copyright/patent/trademark/... laws is intentionally deceptive and causes confusion[1]. Personally I don't quite agree with all of his arguments, but he does have a far more radical view than the others mentioned in the article. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html