[pp.int.general] "Intellectual property"

[I.K.]

Actually biologists love to use the more exact scientific names (e.g.
> Caviidae for the group or Cavia porcellus for the common pet) ? to avoid
> this kind of problem.
> And if you're talking genetics we're more along the lines of "cp dc12a4" ;)
>

They do. But I bet that when they call these creatures "guinea pigs"
colloquially, their colleagues don't tell them that they are not real
biologists that promote anti-biological propaganda or something. In fact,
their colleagues will likely not pay any attention - because obviously,
eveybody understands what kind of creature they are talking about

You could compare it to a religious group calling guinea pigs guinea
> pigs because they want them to be places under the same kind of
> religious bans.
> If e.g. a religious book would state "you should not eat anything whose
> name contains pig" you would see quite a number of people arguing about
> "Guinea Pig" ;) (and no, this is not meant as some kind of religious
> joke or insult).
>

 Exactly! Except that religions will never forbid anything that contains a
word "pig", they will rather forbid something that contains pork.
Now, copyright lobbyist are the same: nobody is pushing through the idea
that everything that contains a word "property" in its name should be
treated like any other kind of property; rather, their idea is that
everything that is property in its nature should be treated like any other
kind of property, regardless of the way it is called. They don't advocate
copyright because the term "intellectual property" contains the word
"property", they advocate it because they think that copyrighted material IS
someone's property. See, the idea, the nature of phenomenon is what matters
- not the wording used to refer to it.

Cheers,
Ilya.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20100709/fec3e42b/attachment.htm>