<br>I have had a look at your wiki. Again, though I like the original idea (substituting their terms for ours), I disagree with the solution.<br><br>My main problem is that we attack intellectual property as a concept, because we think nothing intellectual can in truth be someone's "property". As I said before, you can't own a melody as you'd own a car. The rights you have over your car cannot be applied to products of the brain.
<br><br>If you use the very same word, "property", in "Pirate-property", you are keeping the concept of property applied to intellectual products. I think the flaw is there. If you say "property", you are still accepting
<span style="font-style: italic;">their </span>term, their ideas, and putting "pirate" before it only sounds like stealing. <br><br>If, on the contrary, you <span style="font-style: italic;">refuse </span>the very concept of traditional property to intellectual products, everything becomes naturally free for use, as logic says it should be.
<br><br>However, we, in our proposal on copyright (we translated it to author's rights, the concept of copyright is again refused), we constantly defend author's rights.<br><br>I hope that, whether you agree with us or not, you'll please take out and eliminate the term "property" of your proposal. It really helps them, not us, IMHO.
<br><br>Greetings,<br><br>Natsu<br>