[pp.int.general] "Intellectual property"

[Mikko Särelä]

Hmm. I kind of promised myself not to get involved, but this one needs a 
correction. 

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, I.K. wrote:
> Is intellectual property just property? No, everybody knows that. 

Nope. Everyone does not know that. Everyone on this list probably knows 
that. People who are well read and understand something about economy 
often understand that, but not nearly always. People generally will not 
greatly differentiate between one kind of property and another kind. This 
is why intellectual property is so potentially harmful to our cause.

In matters outside it's sphere of knowledge, human mind makes inferences 
based on anything it can - very often sub-consciously. The use of the word 
intellectual property in communications with the public gives the 
impression that it has similar properties as property in general. And this 
makes it easier for the copyright lobby to call file sharers thiefs, etc. 


There is a more general point behind all this. Human beings are not 
logical Spocks. In politics, words have power. Let me take an example: 

If someone calls Obama's healthcare plan communism, people react to that. 
Many people will react negatively to the plan merely because such a word 
has been attached to it. They do so, because there is a long history to 
the word communism and what it represents. It does not matter if this 
'communism' is different or that you try to explain that it is different. 
There's simple not enough time in the world to explain to every person on 
earth that in this case communism does not mean all the things that it 
does on other things.

Words are part of a political battle field. Similarly, the choice of word 
Pirateparty is a political choice. The party was not named 'the 
Intellectual Thieves Party', for a reason. 

-- 
Mikko Särelä
"It is through exchange that difference becomes a blessing, not a
curse", Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain