5 ms·
"If I can make "Fair Use" of your book, why not your bed or your house?" I don't buy this. These kind of ridiculous parallels come from the assumption that it
by lewhoo 3y ago
"If I can make "Fair Use" of your book, why not your bed or your house?"
I don't buy this. These kind of ridiculous parallels come from the assumption that it is ok to equate a book, a bed and a house for the purpose of the argument.
- nemo44x 3y agoIt's such a bizarre argument I'm not even sure how they logically got there. A bed and a house are physical things. A song is an idea. We literally call it "intellectual property".
- kmeisthax 3y agoThe argument isn't that we should start allowing people to make fair use of your bed, the argument is that we shouldn't use the phrase "intellectual property", because no other property right is this permissive with unauthorized use and exploitation. The rhetorical technique Stephan is using is reductio ad absurdum, or "reducing to the absurd."
- lewhoo 3y agoExcept maybe public property which is arguably even more permissive ?
- Dylan16807 3y agoThat's because "property" normally implies private property, so adding the word "public" inverts it. It's not merely another category of "property". Public IP is called the public domain, and is the most permissive of all.
- lewhoo 3y agoI'm not so sure about that. Public property is a category of property assigned typically to a defined community. For example, citizens of Russia don't have the rights to use at least some of the public property means of USA and so on.