Fritz Feger wrote:
Bill on intellectual property:
But this analogy overlooks the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference.
Not me, but rather the passage I quoted for your "entertainment.
"Intellectual property" rather is a term designed to protect the efforts of the producer who decides to devote them not to produce material objects but to create immaterial innovations. This is why patent laws exist; without them you wouldn't get most of the economy working, and many great inventions would have never seen the sunlight, as I mentioned some mails ago.
The passage I quoted took pains to distinguish copyright law and patent law.
And, as I also mentioned earlier, everyone who commits himself to cite other people's ideas rather than to pretend they're his thereby accepts the concept of intellectual property.
Well, they accept the concept of both copyright law and the more banal point of noting sources for the sake of a reader's research and also to avoid being accused of plagiarism.