Well if there's a "false disanalogy," than this is so under American law, not the passage:

"There is another problem with ``intellectual property'': it is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. For instance, if you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it is notthe same for patent law, since that is almost always true."

First, that it is American law doesn't necessarily mean that there are no false disanalogies implied. (Without having bothered to read the American law on this, though, I guess it is perfectly consistent with respect to this point). Then, to distinguish between intellectual property and copyright does not imply that the don't have something in common or that one (copyright) is derivative to the other (intellectual property). I'll return to this point below.

...

I shall try to define copyright: To state that the copyright for the music on a CD you buy remains mine is to specify the utilisation contract (dunno the correct legal term in English...) between you and me. It means to restrict the rights on my intellectual property which you purchase in buying my CD to putting this CD into any CD player you like and play it as often and as loud as you want and to whomever you want, but not to multiply the medium and thereby to further broaden the circle of people using my intellectual property. The contract says that if a second copy is required, it has to be purchased again from me or my agent, e.g. my record label. The same with software and single vs. multiple user licenses. And there are further restrictions which are part of the deal and thus subject to copyright. If you like to broadcast a track of my CD, this also requires you to purchase a separate license because, again, this broadens the circle of possible users of my property. Well, the passages I quoted (and didn't quote) argue that you shouldn't equate copyright law with "intellectual property rights." In your definition above, you did.

Of course I did not. Rather, I stated that copyright is derivative on intellectual property. It cannot been equated for the simple reason that "intellectual property (rights)" is a legal title assigned to an entity, and "copyright", the other way round, defines and thereby restricts other people's use of an such an entity , the "right to copy" it. Okay, what kind of entity it entitles you to copy if not an entity of which someone else holds the property rights? And, as material things normally cannot be "copied", what else could that be than an immaterial, an intellectual entity?

"Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic overgeneralization. Any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. The term ``intellectual property'' leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish various abstractions that can be bought and sold, and ignore the important aspect, which is the restrictions they place on the public and what good or harm those restrictions cause."

Actually there is one point where I can follow their argumentation. Restrictions on the free use of anyone's intellectual property can do good or harm to the public. I'm far from praising every aspect the current regimes (quite different between even western countries) on patents, copyright and so on, but the principle that there are, as I pointed out, some cases where a protection of those does good to the public (e.g. with expensive technical innovations which would never happen without strict patent laws) and should therefore be assured, is quite clear. And that e.g. in the case of scientific publications everyone should have free access to it is equally clear (where the supply of these, as I said, is guaranteed by a system of permanent positions and grants which makes the protagonists independent from cash flow proportional to use of their output). I don't see why such differentiated treatments are prevented from happening by the use of the intellectual property concept. I don't see why you couldn't argue that (certain kinds of) intellectual property ought to be public domain without killing the messenger.

the GNU page notes further:

By the way: how do the authors of public domain and/or open source software make a living?

"According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Though not under that label, the notion of intellectual property is as old as the notion of plagiarism, i.e. the ancient greeks had it perfectly available.

(See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US. See <http://www.wipout.net/>http://www.wipout.net/ for a counter-WIPO campaign."

I'm indeed sympathising with the goals of the open source guys, and consider the WIPO as a malign and sector-egoistic lobby organisation as many other societies which lobby other economic sectors. But I don't believe it to be a smart move to deny the notion of intellectual property in general. The same with material property. You can tax it or whatever if you want the public to participate at the wealth of the few, but you will get a lot of hot air rather than their money if you deny the very concept of property.

There's a significant moral difference between copying a book from the library for one's own personal use without buying it, and taking a text from such a book and publishing and claiming it as your own. there's a huge moral difference actually.

Did I imply the opposite? No. As ever, there are graduations in morality, as there are in legal measures. Plagiarism is surely one of the worst violations of someone else's intellectual property rights, and copying a book from the library for private use is not even a trifling offence but rather a tacitly tolerated practice. I mean to let libraries exist is, from the perspective of a book publisher, a twofold thing! But this is perfectly accepted among publishers, or even promoted. The whole scientific journals market openly, and reasonably so, works that way; the journals are so expensive that only libraries can afford them.

Note this also:

"If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing."

I like to decide myself which terms I consider meaningful, I never had good feelings about censorship. Just kidding. Bill, we are both such terriers. I love it.