[pp.int.general] pp.international.general Digest, Vol 41, Issue 10

[Fedor Khod'kov]

> In the same way, everybody understands what kind of phenomena the term
> "intellectual property" refers to (you know, copyright, patents and
> all of that) - so again, there is not problem in using this term.

To *refer* to copyright, patents and all of that is not the only job the
term "intellectual property" does.  It has second job: to determine *way
of thinking* about copyright, patents and so on.  Nobody thinks of
guinea pigs as pigs (well, probably somebody who hears that word for the
first time does think so); but many think (and try to persuade others to
think) of copyright as a form of property, of unauthorized copying as
"theft" and of supportes of freedom to copy as "communists" and
"opponents of property right".  Rejecting the term "intellectual
property" is a good first step to refuse that way of thinking and
explain others why such way of thinking should be refused.  On the
contrary, there is absolutely no reason to accept this term.