Firefox market share bounces back 6705

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate RMS's accomplishments and share many of his views. But when you plot out viewpoints on copyright and the like, you end up with a continuum with Microsoft on one side, Richard on the other, and most of Open Source community distributed somewhere in the middle. By that definition, both RMS and MS have 'extreme' views.

As for the term 'intellectual property', it is commonly agreed that it encompbuttes patent, copyright, and trademark law... the major body of law that regulates the use of human created intangibles. I know many people hate the use of the term 'property' when referring to intangibles, but there is a thread that connects them. Property is something you can own. Ownership is defined as the right to control the use of something. When we grant someone a patent, copyright, or trademark, we are granting a right of control... hence the tendency to think of those intangibles as 'property'.

I am not defending the status quo here. The copyright duration is too long, the DMCA has to go, and the patent system is a mess beyond description. But the term 'intellectual property' exists and words trend to mean what people think they mean... you are better off fighting the laws than the language. You are right, though, in that people often confuse copyright and patent law (which are very different)... I think they often use the IP term out of laziness, not knowing which laws really apply.

I find it interesting when people express such certainty about 'intellectual property' and what is the one 'right way' to handle it. Recall that the very concept of property (tangible or not) is an artificial construct. It exists only because we all agree that it exists. Any definition of 'property' will only be valid if society as a whole accepts it.

The RIAA seems to think that just about everyone, given the chance, will 'pirate' music rather than buy it. But if almost everyone feels they have the right to share music, then shouldn't the copyright laws change to reflect that? It is not as if factories will shut down and farmers will stop planting if a few record labels go under. Why are we pbutting draconian laws that do not reflect the will of the public? (don't answer that, I'm being rhetorical) And in reality, loosening of copyright restrictions will not spell the rest of the content industry, it will just change. Prices will drop (but so will distribution cost), equilibrium will be reached, and life will go on with a continuing supply of music, movies, etc. The same holds true in the software industry.

Later,

Thad