Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’. We are talking about

Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’. We are talking about intangibles here (often described by the politically and philosophically loaded term intellectual property) I find it unreasonable to treat them as private physical property. It restricts the true potential of the digital, i.e virtually zero distribution costs. In my view, digital content resembles a ’commons’ in their use and cultural significance. I believe the interest of IP-holders should take a back seat to the far more important free flow of information. ”Intellectual property” has always been stolen and copied and I would argue that the world is better of that way. So much of our art and technology would not exist without these ”thefts”. Intellectual property is only property because a state uses its monopoly on violence to enforce someones monopoly on an idea/concept/information. It is not because of any divine right of an owner to restrict what others do with intangible objects of information. Also, there is a spectrum. No one would think it just if the Fourier transform was subject to licensing.