I see. Well that seems to mostly talk about physical property. That makes sense - there is one thing, it takes effort to make more, and only one person can have

I see. Well that seems to mostly talk about physical property. That makes sense - there is one thing, it takes effort to make more, and only one person can have it at a time. Many people have a problem with equating "theft" to intellectual property since the concept doesn't map directly. If I make a dining table, I shouldn't have to hand it over to my country after a "limited" time (life of the creator plus 70 years now, isn't it?). But perhaps other people should be able to create similar looking tables after a while, to help advance any new techniques or artistic styles used. Ideas can be used while still belonging to the creator. If I try to block that cultural evolution with a license of some kind, I think I'm doing a disservice to the culture that helped me create the table. Anyway, does that still relate to the article? Probably not, I was replying more to the concept that everything is made in isolation so full control should be kept. As a society we already decided that doesn't always apply to IP which books are definitely part of. If we aren't careful in separating the concepts of products and ideas, then we get tractors we aren't allowed to fix.