3 ms·
I didn’t argue that IP was property. I responded to the suggestion that the reason to have a limited copyright term is because enforcement is taxpayer funded. I
by dahart 5y ago
I didn’t argue that IP was property. I responded to the suggestion that the reason to have a limited copyright term is because enforcement is taxpayer funded. I’m pointing out that this reasoning is inconsistent and has no strong basis.
- labawi 5y agoI'm pointing out your reasoning is unfounded non sequitur. Physical property does indeed revert to public domain, hence it does not make sense to add requisites for release of intellectual restrictions. Requiring public funding for only-temporarily-private IP would make things more inconsistent.