3 ms·
>I have long wondered about people who dismiss concerns over semantics. There is no doubt language is frequently misused to further ideology. In fact, this is
by macspoofing 14y ago
>I have long wondered about people who dismiss concerns over semantics.
There is no doubt language is frequently misused to further ideology. In fact, this is exactly what OP is doing. He's trying to redefine a universally understood term to fit his particular ideology ("IP is not property" or maybe "information should be free").
There are problems with current laws around IP, but redefining terms is not a way to fix them. Furthermore, most people would not agree with the extreme position that that OP is taking (no IP laws) either, so arguing for semantics is either detrimental, confusing or pointless.
- josephlord 14y agoI think that the use of the word property isn't properly aligned with the current law and also isn't the right word to use. That doesn't mean that I believe that all information should be completely free from the moment of creation. A balance is needed and the word 'property' implies too exclusive and permanent a state for either the current law or to an even greater extent my view of a better balance. I don't believe once published/played/performed the artist/creator has a total exclusive right over the material. The public, fans and anyone that hears or sees the work gain some right over it as it affects their mind and thoughts. This isn't to say that the artist immediately should lose all control and protection but that the people of the culture they put the work into also gain some rights to it. The balance is probably best struck by a duration of exclusive rights and then release although those exclusive rights themselves may have limits. If you want to keep intellectual property as your own personal property in perpetuity you need to keep it in your own head or otherwise privately secured.