In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as >property. We have no problems considering land (real estate) property, >but traditionally Bantu societies do not consider that land can be >owned by an individual. There are no "natural" characteristics of >property, just accepted ones. There are natural characteristics of physical objects, which are related to the laws we have about them. It is a characteristic of physical objects that if one person owns them, another person doesn't. That some societies don't allow land to be owned doesn't change that fact. However so-called "intellectual property" does not have this characteristic, because a copy is readily made and as good as the original. The law gives abstract works that characteristic by granting monopolies such as copyright and patents. To reiterate: the distinction between physical property and intellectual property arises from facts about the world, not just conventions of society. >> Naturally, various >> interests would like this to be the case, and using the term >> "intellectual property" plays into their hands. The same goes for >> using terms like "theft" and "stealing" when referring to copyright >> infringement. > >Of course. People will try and protect what butters their bread. Some people will. People organised into companies are particularly liable to this. -- Richard -- "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
