absolutely agree, but I take it further The language of appropiation implies a sort of 'property'-like dynamic for ideas. If I learn, get to know, understand

absolutely agree, but I take it further The language of appropiation implies a sort of 'property'-like dynamic for ideas. If I learn, get to know, understand an idea from somebody else, I have not appropiated them in any way. I merely have adopted their idea. This way of copying/adopting of other's ideas is what makes a cultural society thrive. On the other hand, a society where all idea transfers are in fact an exchange of something, is exactly what I consider the essence of a market. The critical difference is that in a market, widgets are exchanged. And whenever somebody takes a widget from somebody else, only one widget remains. However when somebody adopts another's idea, the idea is now it two places (and quite possibly, with a slight difference); that it, until "the idea" becomes a digital artifact, then it's the exact same "digital" copy which exists in more than the one original instance. It's the dumbest action to try and enforce that digital artifacts (and later on, ideas themselves) behave like widgets in a market.