[davidw]

> Regardless, if you still think there is anything "unserious" or even "dishonest" about this perspective, please elaborate.

Yes, what you wrote here:

> They're the same backwards looking people who said "but what about property rights" when it came to freeing slaves.

To me the comparison is too direct and is therefore inflamatory and distracts from your point. It takes the conversation in a Godwinish direction. Oh, also, it's factually incorrect given that the slavery people were mostly white southerners who have been dead over 100 years, and many of the IP people are wealthy coastal types who probably are fairly "progressive" in their politics in other ways, if you look at Hollywood as an example, superficial though they may be in their outlook.

The whole "intellectual property" thing, in any case, really derives from two things: 1) the "moral rights" to control something you brought into being, and 2) that artificial property is a good solution to the public goods problem in certain cases, if the needs of consumers and producers are properly balanced (currently I do not deem that to be the case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

[alexqgb]

And calling people "intellectually dishonest" isn't inflammatory?

More to the point, I was asking you if you saw anything unserious and dishonest about my perspective as a whole. And that perspective is not summed up in the single line you extracted. Nevertheless, you felt you could justify a personal attack on the integrity of another by citing this one line in isolation, as though it were a complete summation of the broader argument.

I think you need to be careful with this "intellectually dishonest" tag, my friend. This may be a case of what Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than it does about Paul.

In the meantime, I maintain my position: the Civil War era remains a rich source of examples showing how humans respond when changing norms about what can and cannot be considered property threaten the economic interests of those who are likely to lose their status. Even if the bone of contention is different, the point (which you seem hell-bent on missing) is that the reactions are very much the same.

Indeed, being able to see those reactions in a very different context is essential to recognizing their underlying patterns, and the unifying elements. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying "No! Regardless of the parallels, they CANNOT BE DISCUSSED! No No No No! This is OFF LIMITS!!!!

To which I say, oh go grow a pair.

[davidw]

I didn't call you as a person dishonest, I called one portion of your comment dishonest, and I stand by that.

There's no way I could judge you or your character via one offhand comment on a web site, but I can certainly say that I find comparing intellectual property to slavery ridiculous.

Most of your comment was pretty well reasoned, which made the inflammatory bit irritating as it, IMO, dragged the rest down.

Perhaps a more neutral approach: "what has been considered property through the ages has changed" would have worked better than directly comparing supporters of IP to slave owners.

[alexqgb]

Excuse me?

Exactly where did I say that "people who support IP are just like those slave owners"? (Hint: nowhere)

For the record, I happen to be quite a strong supporter of IP in general (and no, I don't support slavery). However, I also know that IP needs to evolve if it's to retain its value, and that this evolution demands a change in the underlying concept of property itself (a concept which, obviously, extends waaay past IP).

That puts me in direct conflict with people who don't want to make changes in this broader concept a part of the conversation regarding IP, and who back up this resistance by advancing a notion of property rights in general as being inflexible, absolute, and beyond question.

Obviously, this absolutist position has a dramatic narrowing effect on any IP-specific discussion, which is the whole point of taking that position in the first place. It is a suppressive tactic. In THIS regard, what we're seeing now is very similar to what happened in America in the 18th Century; SOME people who were in favor of slavery attempted to steer the conversation about it by advancing an inflexible, absolutist idea of property in general, promoting it as a socially necessary good. Then, like now, the assumption was that the status quo could be protected if property as an evolving concept were kept off the table, and property as a non-evolving concept were kept on it.

And THAT is what I'm talking about. I'm not making ridiculous claims that IP and slavery themselves are commensurate, or that people who support one are like people who support the other. And frankly, you'd have to be very careless or dishonest in your reading to assert that I am.

No, what I am (and have been) talking about are very specific tactics surrounding the rhetorical treatment of the idea of property in general. I'm noting that these tactics appeared when slavery was still seen as defensible, and I'm noting that remarkably similar tactics and treatments are appearing in IP debates today - especially ones in which people are trying to justify increasingly extreme measures to protect an outdated status quo.

These people - who can come from Malibu as easily as they come from Mississippi - aren't simply scared of change. After all, lots of people scared of change don't resort to falsifying the historic flexibility of property as a concept before using it to frame a debate. Only a vociferous and dangerous subset choose to employ this particular strategy.

Fortunately, the historic record contains many examples of this very aggressive response. And because there's a clear pattern to it, this record can be mined for counter examples that show how it was eventually defeated. Of course, it helps to have specific points of reference. Vague and neutral generalities help no one except those who are on the wrong side of this in the first place.

And yes, this is a partisan view. That's because the absolutist idea of inflexible property is also a partisan view. The moment you hear it, you should know that you're dealing with a person conducting their own non-neutral and highly offensive attack, and you should respond accordingly.

"Go to hell" is putting it politely.