[pp.int.general] Correct word usage for PP.

[Maike Marrek]

> The term "digital goods" shares a drawback with all other terminology
> taken from economics: it directs people to think in terms of economics
> rather than in terms of human rights.

Human rights are social as well as economic values. I agree with you: we 
are living in a economic dominated world, where financial gains and 
losses are the main mantras - not social values. IMO one historical 
reason for this is that philosophy itself enabled this evolution, 
because philosophers didn't get in dialogue with other academic 
professions and moreover: society itself.

Paragraph-filling sentences with grammatical constructions, where even 
the author himself sometimes stumbles, dozens of words with specific 
philosophical definitions, which have to be laboriously worked out, 
historical references - it's a matter of will & time, to follow these lines.

"Time is money" and/or time is quality of life. Whilst philosophers 
discuss abstract constructions, other are just creating facts or 
enjoying family, nature, consumption, whatever.

IMO it's time for philosophy to open its faculty by adapting current and 
prevalent vocabularies - if philosophers want to be heard.

> I call them "published works".  Everyone will understand that term,
> which is much older and predates the tendency to look at life in terms
> of economics.
> 
> As for "virtual assets", that is not equivalent to those other too.
> Its meaning is totally different.

Can't find some widely accepted economic definitions, seems to be a 
legal buzzword like "intellectual property". What's about existing 
definitions like "virtual goods" or "digital goods"? Regarding virtual 
currencies, Pat could be right saying there's a lack of clear definitions.

> For instance, a digital audio recording that we might have a copy of
> could be called a "digital good", though I would prefer to call it
> a "published work".
> 
> The copyright on that recording might be a "virtual asset",
> but the recording itself is probably not one.

In German economic terms copyrights are "Immaterialgüter" like legal 
rights, probably there is an English equivalent.

> The copyright is not the same thing as the work.  Identifying them
> tends to lead people to believe that copyright policy is inherent in
> the works and cannot be changed. 

Especially artists do know that it is not like that, because they 
usually/sometimes/some of them are forced to subrogate their rights. But 
artists do have problems with our claim "freedom to share copies of 
published work". Regarding Maslow: if one has to fight for his 
sustenance, it won't be useful for him to behave in an altruistic 
manner. Or regarding Kant: do we want a law, that enables others to 
disregard our own sustenance?

> Another problem with "virtual asset" is that it lumps together
> copyrights, patents, trademarks, and various other legal privileges.
> That is self-defeating.  We need to teach people to see them as
> separate issues.

Economic terms could be helpful, because they've always treated these 
issues separated.



-- 
a one-armed man comes into a flower shop and says
what flower expresses
days go by and it just keeps going by
endlessly pulling you into the future
days go by, endlessly
endlessly pulling you into the future

and the florist says: the white lilly.

Laurie Anderson - Home of Brave