[pp.int.general] ACTA declaration

[Edison Carter]

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09.07.2010 11:34, Edison Carter wrote:
>>
>> I don't think you actually belong in the pirate party.
>
> Beholde, the Great Judge has arrived!
> Do you have the Codex with you?
>
>> "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer, and attaching the word "property"
>> to things
>> that are NOT property doesn't make them become property.
>
> I do know that understanding my previous statements require some mental
> powers which some - well - lack.
>
>> It simple clouds the issue and causes people to have silly, confused ideas
>> about
>> the difference between a 'property rights' and a state-granted power
>> to interfere with the freedom of other people.
>>
>
> Please continue thinking of property as something nature-given and simple.
> That will serve our opponents well. I'll be glad to meet you in a discussion
> on Intellectual Property and its origins.
>

I'm already pretty familiar with the origin of so-called "intellectual
property" -- Rick summed it up nicely earlier in this thread and I can
provide a fair mountain of references to back up Rick's view of
history.

"property" is something you possess. The first manuscript, etc.
There's a fairly natural right for me to hold onto the sheet of paper
that I wrote down my ideas on. We might call it a 'property right'.

"copyright" is a quite different thing. If someone looks at my sheet
of paper, they might memorise it, or write down my ideas on their own
sheet of paper. They might even buy a copy from me and then try to
make another copy. "copyright" is the idea that I should have the
power to stop them from doing that. It's not a natural right at all,
it's controlling what they do with their own property copying
something they bought from me outright or writing a particular
sequence of words on their own paper with their own pen.