Intellectual property rites

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

...
It's beyond my interest to delve much further into hate speech, but note the term "hate speech." My feeling is that when terms like: hate speech, enhanced interrogation, intellectual property, etc., are generated, the borders of engagement are being shifted and protected grounds are being encroached.

You doubt the significance of the qualifiers hate, enhanced, and intellectual?

Hate speech is something like incitement to violence.
"Enhanced interrogation" is of course being polite.
"Intellectual" property means one's work rights must be protected too.

What's not clear?

[only_human]

I'm not so subtle and quick to answer.

Mathematical Quotations -- L

La Touche, Mrs.

I do hate sums. There is no greater mistake than to call arithmetic an exact science. There are permutations and aberrations discernible to minds entirely noble like mine; subtle variations which ordinary accountants fail to discover; hidden laws of number which it requires a mind like mine to perceive. For instance, if you add a sum from the bottom up, and then from the top down, the result is always different.
Mathematical Gazette, v. 12.

[davar55]

Are you trying to discern the difference between subjective,
personal, and objective? The person who always adds wrong
can be considered "less informed" on addition than the one
who always (or usually) gets it right. Math is not subjective.
Proofs (correct ones) are absolute. Such is arithmetic.

Perhaps you dispute the correctness of my post because I
believe in simplifying things? So be it. Simplicity is the
goal of math and logic and philosophy and science and
knowledge and discussion.

I'm glad to listen, but the implications of that post were skewed.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by only_human

I'm not so subtle and quick to answer.

Mathematical Quotations -- L

Originally Posted by davar55

Are you trying to discern the difference between subjective,
personal, and objective? [...]
I'm glad to listen, but the implications of that post were skewed.

No, I was making an oblique allusion to a quote of Tolkien. Then I made a mathematical quote to draw on subtlety and misunderstandings. I assume that intentions are good during misunderstandings.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

You doubt the significance of the qualifiers hate, enhanced, and intellectual?

Hate speech is something like incitement to violence.
"Enhanced interrogation" is of course being polite.
"Intellectual" property means one's work rights must be protected too.

What's not clear?

Here is another: extraordinary rendition.

Perhaps when the government makes a new term for something, it often means they are doing something wrong.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

Perhaps when the government makes a new term for something, it often means they are doing something wrong.

Perhaps, though based on the nature of government, they must have their own problems.

Euphemisms aside, what's wrong with intellectual property rights? I think this issue
is a "brainer" and a no-brainer. There's little difference between a copyright and a right
of ownership by purchase, except that the originator of a work or an idea should get
even more protection of his/her rights considering the work's greater importance to
the world (than say my car).

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

Perhaps, though based on the nature of government, they must have their own problems.

Euphemisms aside, what's wrong with intellectual property rights? I think this issue
is a "brainer" and a no-brainer. There's little difference between a copyright and a right
of ownership by purchase, except that the originator of a work or an idea should get
even more protection of his/her rights considering the work's greater importance to
the world (than say my car).

Your answer indicates the fuzzy conflation that "intellectual property" is intended to cause. Copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks and service marks embody a thorough corpus of protections and ownership rights. By using an umbrella term it becomes easier to shift battles and externalities of costs or benefits and then play rights off against each other to achieve often inequitable goals.

Bonus question: did creating a separate-but-equal term of "domestic partnership" achieve a result of equal rights, or did it cause an almost doubling of legalese incapable of achieving anything but a distinction?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

Your answer indicates the fuzzy conflation that "intellectual property" is intended to cause. Copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks and service marks embody a thorough corpus of protections and ownership rights. By using an umbrella term it becomes easier to shift battles and externalities of costs or benefits and then play rights off against each other to achieve often inequitable goals.

Bonus question: did creating a separate-but-equal term of "domestic partnership" achieve a result of equal rights, or did it cause an almost doubling of legalese incapable of achieving anything but a distinction?

There's a big difference between my earning what I deserve for creating what I write or invent (intellectual property)
and not validating same-sex marriage (who exactly coined the term domestic partners?).

One shouldn't shoot down the right to justice in both issues just because the other issue is currently in transition.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

There's a big difference between my earning what I deserve for creating what I write or invent (intellectual property)
and not validating same-sex marriage (who exactly coined the term domestic partners?).

One shouldn't shoot down the right to justice in both issues just because the other issue is currently in transition.

Do you not understand what I am saying? The umbrella term allows oversimplification and generates confusion much as you demonstrated when you mentioned chattel (car as property) at the same time as patent rights. They are not similar to a degree; they are different things. Confusion aids in legal creep, in which legal creeps encroach further with almost every update.

Steamboat Willie has outlasted both steamboats and his own name. Pluto has outlasted longer than the planet, but thats ok because maybe it is a planet again. Somebody is going to have to thaw out Walt Disney to ask him what to do with all these perpetual royalties. Copyright is supposed to be a contract with both sides receiving consideration. The works are supposed to enter public domain after a reasonable period of protection. Free Willie.

I retract the bonus question. There's too much on your plate already.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

Do you not understand what I am saying? The umbrella term allows oversimplification and generates confusion much as you demonstrated when you mentioned chattel (car as property) at the same time as patent rights. They are not similar to a degree; they are different things. Confusion aids in legal creep, in which legal creeps encroach further with almost every update.

Steamboat Willie has outlasted both steamboats and his own name. Pluto has outlasted longer than the planet, but thats ok because maybe it is a planet again. Somebody is going to have to thaw out Walt Disney to ask him what to do with all these perpetual royalties. Copyright is supposed to be a contract with both sides receiving consideration. The works are supposed to enter public domain after a reasonable period of protection. Free Willie.

I retract the bonus question. There's too much on your plate already.

First one must acknowledge that owning one's property is a right, as important as most of the others
protected by our bill of rights.

Then one must acknowledge that invention and creativity are functions by which we live and survive.
One might want to challenge this, but it is demonstrable.

Then one must acknowledge that one is entitled to own the product of his work, ESPECIALLY those
whose work involve invention and creativity, these being the kind of people whose work most benefits
the rest of humanity, and who are thus most deserving of earning and keeping the rewards.

Hence intellectual property rights.

The only caveat I'm willing to concede is that EVENTUALLY patents and copyrights expire, usually well
after their original owner does. So that they for a time are held by the originator's heirs. The logic of
this too is demonstrable, but is open to debate / discussion. (Well, everything's open to discussion
among free rational peoples.)

[only_human]

Here is a pretty picture of the ongoing copyright extension travesty:
http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/(C)_Term.html

The above chart is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

(C) 1999-2008 Tom W. Bell. All rights reserved. Fully attributed noncommercial use of this document permitted if accompanied by this paragraph.

Patents are generally for 20 years and haven't been messed with much although there are medical drug issues.

Originally Posted by davar55
Hence intellectual property rights.

The only caveat I'm willing to concede is that EVENTUALLY patents and copyrights expire, usually well
after their original owner does. So that they for a time are held by the originator's heirs. The logic of
this too is demonstrable, but is open to debate / discussion. (Well, everything's open to discussion
among free rational peoples.)

Again you miss my point. My point is that the unnecessary umbrella term causes conflation, just as you just did, again, with patents and copyrights. This confusion assists special interests in moving agendas that may not be in the public's best interests. Patents expire fairly quickly; your acceptance of a possible longer term for them is an example of the insidious creep that new nomenclature can cause.