Re: for the "love of HURD"

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > A title or a organisation does not make the law.

   No, but titles are, in general, chosen very carefully to accurately
   reflect the very nature of what they designate. The WIPO has it's
   current name because it has been crafted around intellectual
   property, which is the union of artistic and industrial property.

More like that they try to distort what they really mean.  DMCA, WIPO,
and to make it a tad bit on topic, DRM (Digital Restriction Managment)
and TC (Treacherous Computing), are all such names that try to obscure
what the goal really entails.

For example, the WIPO sounds all nice and fluffy, but ideas, creative
content, are not property, and applying the same rules for
non-tangible objects as for tangible ones does not make sense.

   It's not like if IP was a buzzword or a fuzzy concept. It has a
   clear meaning, as far as law is concerned.

It is indeed a buzzword, a buzzword that tries to confuse people into
thinking that ideas, software, art, are something you can own.

   You just can't say IP is not clearly defined. It is, and is used in
   laws.

If it is not defined in the law texts, then it is not used in the law.

   But IP has been used, and for tens of years now.

Doesn't make it any more correct, or less misleading.  It is still not
used to define law.  Many people call the sharing of software for
theft and that you steal from creators when you copy something, even
when speaking in terms of the law.  It is both misleading, and
incorrect, there is nothing wrong with copying something and sharing
it as implied by the terms "theft" and "stealing".  Much like there is
nothing that one can consider property about ideas, software, music or
art.

Those who use these terms only propagate the notion that ideas are
property, and that one can "steal" them.  Nothing could be further
from the truth...

Cheers.