[Upd-discuss] Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage by Richard M. Stallman

[Richard Stallman]

    The phrase "intellectual property" is here to stay, so go after the
    meaning of the phase and the difference between that and properties
    on whicy property tax, luxury tax, etc., are due.

Accepting the term "intellectual property" is the path to defeat.
That term frames the issues in ways that support the WIPO agenda.
Every time we use the term, we facilitate the WIPO agenda, whether or
not we agree with it.

Anything very large is hard to change.  It takes just a small
exaggeration to turn that into "it's here to stay".  We could make
that small exaggeration about the term "intellectual property".  We
could make that small exaggeration about the WIPO agenda, which the
term "intellectual property" supports.  But if we hope to change
something that is large and hard to change, we should not equate a
small chance with zero.

    Use the phrase "limited intellectual property" if you like, or make
    up something else.

Adjusting or replacing the term "intellectual property" could
eliminate the bias, which is one of the term's two problems, but the
problem of encouraging the public to lump together copyright and
patent law would remain.

    Of course, Stallman is missing the entire point with his distinction,
    which is that the term "limited" is what is being challenged,

I've said such things myself (using other words).  However, this
particular discussion isn't about that, it's about the problems of the
term "intellectual property".  If you wish to change the subject, you
mustn't accuse other people of missing your point, merely because they
were already talking about some other point.

    This is the forest. . .the rest is just a few trees here and there.

People who think of copyright and patent law as two "trees" in a
"forest" will have a devil of a time arriving at sensible conclusions
about either one.  The best way to help people think clearly about
these issues, and about trademark law as well, is to stop lumping them
together.  That's why I reject the term "intellectual property": it
encourages people to think that these are "trees" in one "forest".