3 ms·

Are you one of those fools who believe we can define words any way we want? Meditate on this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ http:

Are you one of those fools who believe we can define words any way we want? Meditate on this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ What I'm saying is, the term "intellectual property" messes with our heads in a way that is difficult to compensate for. Words do have true meanings, you know: it's whatever comes to our minds when we read or hear them. And I mean everything that comes to mind, not just what is supposed to come to mind. Take "shit", for instance. It's not just what comes out of our butts. It stinks, it sticks, it's disgusting. These secondary associations and feelings are what we refer to when we say "shitty code" or something. Nobody in their right mind would try to apply the term to a masterfully crafted gem. It would never fly. Let's try a though experiment. Replace "intellectual property" by "intellectual monopoly". Do you feel the difference? No? I don't believe you. --- I agree the term "intellectual property" is well accepted. But it is not well understood. Most people wrongly believe intellectual property and physical property are analogous. Many people (especially those in power) wrongly believe stealing a film is like stealing an apple. But I assume you understand the term well, and therefore don't fall prey to these gross fallacies. You're quite an exception, not being sensitive to this "intellectual property" piece of Novlang.

baddox 13y ago
I'm saying that we can choose to define a word any way we want, but we shouldn't use non-standard definitions if our goal is to be understood. And, more importantly, arguing over "true meanings" of words when pretending to debate value judgements is one of the most common and ridiculous pitfalls that people fall into. That article on lesswrong seems to agree with my point. "Intellectual property" is a specific term that has a specific and well-accepted definition, both as a legal definition and in common everyday usage. > Words do have true meanings, you know: it's whatever comes to our minds when we read or hear them. I completely disagree. Words are meant for communication. I say a word, and you hear it. My goal is for the idea in my head to map to the same idea in your head. That's why I should be aware of my audience, and shouldn't use words in non-standard ways. If you go around using the term "intellectual property" and you don't mean patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., then you should expect to be misunderstood. And if you base your argument against IP protection laws on what you claim to be the "true definition" of "property," you're not actually arguing the relevant value judgement. You're just making a semantic argument. > Replace "intellectual property" by "intellectual monopoly". Do you feel the difference? Of course I feel the difference. One is an extremely common term that is fairly well-defined in legal and other circles, while the other is an ad hoc description of a similar or identical concept. And both would include patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. What's your point? > I agree the term "intellectual property" is well accepted. But it is not well understood. The definition of the term is well understood. Perhaps the economic consequences of the idea itself are not well understood or widely agreed upon, but the definition is. That's why I advocate for debating the value judgement of the concept, rather than the definition of the term. And, to be clear, though it's not particularly relevant to whether semantic arguments are worthwhile, I do oppose all forms of government-enforced intellectual property protection.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Now we're talking. I think you forgot about the guts. Instincts. Whatever happens at a subconscious level, yet influences our explicit thoughts. If you want to communicate effectively, mapping an idea to my head is not enough. You also have to keep my guts in check. For instance, if you're aggressive, it will be more difficult for me to hear you (my own aggressiveness here sure didn't help me get heard). Regarding "intellectual property", there are two things: the standard definition, that most people know in their head. And I agree this one is accurate. But we also have the connotations, the various feeling "intellectual property" triggers in their guts. Those are not accurate. People understand the term well at an abstract level. But at a gut level, they don't. That leaves them open for bogus arguments such as "we should protect property, including intellectual property". An effective con tool. Try on the other hand to say "we should protect property, including intellectual monopoly". The type error is obvious, an the argument doesn't fly. Two very different outcomes, yet the concept behind "intellectual property" and "intellectual monopoly" was the same all along. That's because of the guts. The two terms may in an abstract sense refer to the same concept, but they don't feel the same, and different feelings lead to different outcomes. --- Now if you're in the middle of an actual debate, there will be no avoiding the term "intellectual property", for even if you're wise enough not to utter it, the other party will. At that point, your only recourse is to point out that intellectual property is not a form of property, but a form of monopoly (and maybe take a minute or two talking about state enforced exclusivity). At that point, I would stop using the term "intellectual property" altogether. If the other party continues with "intellectual property blah blah", I will paraphrase the argument with "you said that intellectual monopoly blah blah" before making my next point. If we come to that, I believe most intellectual monopoly advocates will start to insist that "intellectual property" actually is a form of property. And we're back to arguing over definitions. The only reasonable middle ground I see is that we both stop using the terms "intellectual <whatever>", and start talking about copyright, patents, and trademarks directly (and possibly separately, for my current stance isn't the same on all three). But that's for longer debates. If you only have the time for an elevator pitch, you may have to use the more heavily loaded terms to make your point quickly.

baddox 13y ago

I'm saying that we can choose to define a word any way we want, but we shouldn't use non-standard definitions if our goal is to be understood. And, more importantly, arguing over "true meanings" of words when pretending to debate value judgements is one of the most common and ridiculous pitfalls that people fall into. That article on lesswrong seems to agree with my point. "Intellectual property" is a specific term that has a specific and well-accepted definition, both as a legal definition and in common everyday usage. > Words do have true meanings, you know: it's whatever comes to our minds when we read or hear them. I completely disagree. Words are meant for communication. I say a word, and you hear it. My goal is for the idea in my head to map to the same idea in your head. That's why I should be aware of my audience, and shouldn't use words in non-standard ways. If you go around using the term "intellectual property" and you don't mean patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., then you should expect to be misunderstood. And if you base your argument against IP protection laws on what you claim to be the "true definition" of "property," you're not actually arguing the relevant value judgement. You're just making a semantic argument. > Replace "intellectual property" by "intellectual monopoly". Do you feel the difference? Of course I feel the difference. One is an extremely common term that is fairly well-defined in legal and other circles, while the other is an ad hoc description of a similar or identical concept. And both would include patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. What's your point? > I agree the term "intellectual property" is well accepted. But it is not well understood. The definition of the term is well understood. Perhaps the economic consequences of the idea itself are not well understood or widely agreed upon, but the definition is. That's why I advocate for debating the value judgement of the concept, rather than the definition of the term. And, to be clear, though it's not particularly relevant to whether semantic arguments are worthwhile, I do oppose all forms of government-enforced intellectual property protection.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Now we're talking. I think you forgot about the guts. Instincts. Whatever happens at a subconscious level, yet influences our explicit thoughts. If you want to communicate effectively, mapping an idea to my head is not enough. You also have to keep my guts in check. For instance, if you're aggressive, it will be more difficult for me to hear you (my own aggressiveness here sure didn't help me get heard). Regarding "intellectual property", there are two things: the standard definition, that most people know in their head. And I agree this one is accurate. But we also have the connotations, the various feeling "intellectual property" triggers in their guts. Those are not accurate. People understand the term well at an abstract level. But at a gut level, they don't. That leaves them open for bogus arguments such as "we should protect property, including intellectual property". An effective con tool. Try on the other hand to say "we should protect property, including intellectual monopoly". The type error is obvious, an the argument doesn't fly. Two very different outcomes, yet the concept behind "intellectual property" and "intellectual monopoly" was the same all along. That's because of the guts. The two terms may in an abstract sense refer to the same concept, but they don't feel the same, and different feelings lead to different outcomes. --- Now if you're in the middle of an actual debate, there will be no avoiding the term "intellectual property", for even if you're wise enough not to utter it, the other party will. At that point, your only recourse is to point out that intellectual property is not a form of property, but a form of monopoly (and maybe take a minute or two talking about state enforced exclusivity). At that point, I would stop using the term "intellectual property" altogether. If the other party continues with "intellectual property blah blah", I will paraphrase the argument with "you said that intellectual monopoly blah blah" before making my next point. If we come to that, I believe most intellectual monopoly advocates will start to insist that "intellectual property" actually is a form of property. And we're back to arguing over definitions. The only reasonable middle ground I see is that we both stop using the terms "intellectual <whatever>", and start talking about copyright, patents, and trademarks directly (and possibly separately, for my current stance isn't the same on all three). But that's for longer debates. If you only have the time for an elevator pitch, you may have to use the more heavily loaded terms to make your point quickly.