I hate to tell you, but you’re not going to re-invent the vocabulary of the law in this thread. Intellectual property means something to people who study the law, and there are a whole lot of reasons for that. It may be harsh to say this, but no one actually much cares whether you think “ideas can’t be owned,” because they can be owned.

This sort of view (changing the use of “property”) is really not going to get anyone anywhere. It’s akin to wrangling with a new and improved version of Klingon grammar on a wiki somewhere…

However much I disagree with the majority opinion here, or with RMS, all I’m trying to do right now is tell you that many of the arguments in this thread are simply too weird to be accepted by anyone actually practicing law, IMHO…

So the definition of property and intellectual property are not going to change, but maybe the boundaries of those could change if the proper arguments were put forth…

“grants them the exclusive rights by making themselves owner of their creative works.”

I would say, to be very precise, they are owners of certain monopoly rights related to the works – copying, distribution, performance, etc.

That is, a very subtle point, they have ownership of the rights – not the works.

Regarding: “The difference between Professor Lessig and Bill Gates is only a difference in the degree of generosity.”

Well, yes, but there is less to this than meets the eye. It’s like saying “Both Lessig and Gates are capitalists”. That’s true, but the difference isn’t trivial. After all, what’s the difference between the copyright term laws of 1976 and of 2004, except one of degree?

While I agree nobody wants to be called a monopolist, I view that as a far more minor consequence as opposed to the incredible amount of knee-jerk *NOISE* which is generated by the term “property”.

Some of the rights that come with the real property
are also exclusive. I own one acre of land and I have
the exclusive right in my land. I can prevent people
from using my land. But, like copyright, my exclusive
right in my land is limited. I can’t prevent people
from having the right-of-way across my land. Now, we
have to ask ourselves: How is it possible that I have
exclusive rights in my land? The answer is ownership.
I bought one acre of land for a price and after the
transaction is completed, I obtained ownership in my
land. The ownership gives me both exclusive and
non-exclusive rights in my land.

So, we have to ask ourselves: How is it possible that
authors and artists have exclusive rights in their works?
The answer is ownership. When they create their creative
works (non-creative works do not obtain copyright), the
U.S. Government grants them the exclusive rights by making
themselves owner of their creative works.

It happens that the exclusive right in copyright is also
same as the exclusive right in real property. Therefore,
the exclusive right in copyright is a property right. This
is important because, as I stated in my previous comment,
it opposes the natural right that the authors and artists
try to inject in copyright.

Let me try other perspective. Let’s say that we should not
call copyright as a property but as a limited monopoly.
This inevitably implies that the authors and artists are
also monopolist. This means that Seth Finkelstein and
Lewis Hyde are monopolist because they own limited
monopoly in their writings. Even I am a monopolist because
I still own limited monopoly in some of my writings. So
are Professor Lessig, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman,
and lest we forget, Bill Gates. The difference between
Professor Lessig and Bill Gates is only a difference in
the degree of generosity. Professor Lessig is more generous
than Bill Gates but they are still monopolist nevertheless.

Because of many negative connotations that the word
“monopoly” carries, I think that none of us wants to be
called as a monopolist (monopolist is defined as a person
who has a monopoly) but that is what we are if we think
that copyright is only a limited monopoly and nothing else.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

In his recent book on the Constitution�s intellectual property clause, Edward Walterscheid writes that �antipathy toward monoploies� was well developed at the time of the Constitutional convention, adding that Thomas Jefferson �undoubtedly viewed patents as monopolies.� (Jefferson wrote to Madison that the bill of rights should provide �clearly and without the aid of sophism … for the restriction of monopolies.�)

To say �copyright is property� is true but misses, to my mind, the spirit of the Constitutional limits. Better to say “Copyright gives its owners a monopoly, but like all monopolies it is limited.” — Lewis Hyde

Thanks!

BullsFan79

—–
From: Craig Kirby, Deutsch for Senate
Subject: We Can Save Lives – Tell George W. Bush to Stop
Blocking American Scientists

The passing of Ronald Reagan has refocused the nation on
the importance of stem cell research, and the promise that
it holds for so many Americans. But even as our nation’s
top scientists work around the clock in their efforts to
cure Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Diabetes, Tay-Sachs, Sickle
Cell Anemia, and Paralysis, their hands are tied by the
short-sighted agenda of George W. Bush, who three years
ago outlawed federal funding for this life-saving research.

Take this opportunity today to tell the president to stop
his obstructionist tactics and allow scientists to do their
critical work. Sign the petition today:

http://www.deutsch2004.org/petition/stemcell.shtml

This week U.S. Representative Peter Deutsch (D) of Florida
introduced a bill in Congress that would lift the ban on
federal funding for stem cell research. The bill would
enable researchers to use stem cell lines left over from
the in vitro fertilization process, but only with the
express consent of the donor. At the same time, the bill
also would ensure that the research could have a wide range
of applications through a new focus on diversity of stem cell
lines. Finally, the bill creates an office within the NIH to
be called the “Ronald Reagan Office of Human Stem Cell
Research” to oversee all research on the subject.

The bill has broad support nationwide. Republicans such as
first lady Nancy Reagan and Senator Orrin Hatch – not to
mention research advocates like Christopher Reeves and
Mary Tyler Moore – have urged the president to take a
more compassionate, common-sense stance on this issue.
However, until George W. Bush ends his divisive posturing,
many Republicans will not support the bill. Send him
a message today that curing illness, not scoring
political points, should be a top priority.

Once you’ve signed the petition, please copy this email
and forward it to your friends and relatives, and ask
them to join you in signing as well.

Craig Kirby
Campaign Manager
Deutsch for U.S. Senate (D)

Regardless of the amenability of facts to any sort of “intellectual property” protection (cf, Feist (not the BSS singer)), there are plenty of prima facie grounds for Fox to bring its copyright and trademark and dilution suits.

There are the expressions on Bill O’Reilly’s handsome face, there is the backdrop which so nicely complements O’Reilly’s creamy skin tone, there is the pattern of lipstick upon his lips. There may even be a strand of “expression” in his series of words, pauses, gestures and inflections.

Clarification: I am not saying that Fox is correct, rather Greenwald is for the reasons set forth by Prof. Lessig. I am just saying that there is a virtual infinitude of protectible subject matter, even in something as straightforward as a TV political commentary show. Also, when I say that Fox has prima facie grounds, I am not trying to say that they have a Rule 11 sufficient basis for any law suits (I have no comment on that issue).