How Much Does Language Frame The Debate Over Intellectual Property?

from the choose-your-words-carefully dept

Tue, Nov 21st 2006 3:40pm — Mike Masnick

It's well known that the language you use can help frame your debate. It's quite common in politics, but it's definitely true in technology as well. For a long time, I tried to avoid using the term "digital rights management," when it really referred to restrictions and copy protection. The same is true of "piracy" or "theft" which denotes something much worse than simple copyright infringement or making unauthorized copies. Now, Tim Lee is suggesting that we should also avoid using the term "intellectual property" since it unfairly equates copyrights and patents as tangible property, when they're very, very different (some might argue that intellectual property is neither intellectual, nor property). Intellectual property can get especially confusing since it usually refers to copyright, patents and trademarks -- all three of which have extremely different rules and characteristics. Unfortunately, though, these words really have become common enough that people expect their common meanings to apply -- and sometimes it really just is easier to use them and have everyone understand what you're talking about (which is why we will occasionally go back to using "DRM" or "piracy" when it fits). That isn't to say it's not important to point out the problems with those words or phrases when they're misused, but eliminating them from the vocabulary doesn't do much to help either.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Someone, 21 Nov 2006 @ 4:08pm

BB
I've always though that intelectual propertly sounded a little thought policey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Smith, 21 Nov 2006 @ 4:39pm

Intellectual Monopolies
Your point is well taken. How different would the debate about patents be if they were referred to as "intellectual monopolies" rather than "intellectual property"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nonuser, 21 Nov 2006 @ 5:19pm

if someone hacks a government server
swipes a bunch of client account information, and sells it to some organized crime outfit overseas, is that stealing or merely infringement? What if that crime outfit uses the data to obtain credit cards in the clients' names, and runs up substantial bills? Is there a loss of tangible property, or is this merely updating bits on some hard drives in server farms?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stu, 21 Nov 2006 @ 5:44pm

Atwood, Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell all saw the distortion of human language as the first step towards the obliteration of freedom and the beginning of fascism.

Language, like knowledge, is power; who controls language controls the masses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2006 @ 6:23pm

Re: if someone hacks a government server
If someone has credit card numbers in their possession, that's not illegal. What's illegal is using that information to make purchases on someone else's account without their permission.

To confuse intellectual property infringement with credit fraud is completely braindead. Should I we convict Amazon.com of credit fraud because they store credit information?

Go hide under a bridge, troll
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bri, 21 Nov 2006 @ 6:37pm

I can remember when...
I can remember when being a 'hacker' was a good thing. Your mission in life was tweaking the hardware and software for maximum efficiency, something I still do today. The press misappropriated it and changed it into something evil, system cracking and theft. Language drifts over time as anyone of any significant age realizes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2006 @ 8:29pm

Richard Stallman wrote about this very point a couple of years ago (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2006 @ 8:48pm

Intellectual Wealth
Ignoring the issue of overgeneralization, FSF Europe has the interesting idea of using the term Intellectual Wealth, rather than intellectual property in political discussions. The idea being that a government committee devoted to 'intellectual property' is going to be focussed on granting and protecting ownership-like rights. A committee devoted to 'intellectual wealth' may (hopefully) be more focussed on the production and distribution of knowledge - Monopoly privileges being one of may tools to acomplish that end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2006 @ 8:59pm

Re: Intellectual Wealth
"Monopoly privileges being one of may tools to acomplish that end."

Sorry for the typo:

Monopoly privileges being one of many tools to acomplish that end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2006 @ 10:12pm

"intellectual property" is really just thought: em
but the legislators knew the public would not vote for the FBI to be "thought police", hence the name change.

Now I just need to get my little town to use its new eminent domain powers to confiscate the intellectual property rights for Microsoft for the benefit of the town's citizens.

when that happens, maybe more people will vote Libertarian.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YouKnowNothing, 22 Nov 2006 @ 6:06am

Here's an idea...
If the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, et. al. like to pretend that intellectual property is the same as real, tangible property, how about instituting a property tax for it? You'd think the government would be all for this incredible source of tax revenue, and all of a sudden the RIAA, MPAA, etc., would be crying and screaming that intellectual property isn't the same thing a real, tangible propery.

Man, that would be great to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2006 @ 6:21am

Re: Re: if someone hacks a government server
No it's a valid point....it is just numbers and bits of data changing hands.

I should point out that this is not so different than all the bitching that users should lock their machines down. Vendors who are not properly authenticating sales are 90% of the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wizard Prang, 22 Nov 2006 @ 7:01am

I've said it before and I'll say it again...
"Intellectual Property" is an Oxymoron

http://wizardprang.wordpress.com/2006/09/28/a-hitch-hikers-guide-to-copyright/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mousepaw, 22 Nov 2006 @ 7:03am

Re: words
Stu: profound.

Wording is extremely important. How a person uses a word can have a lot of power. Here's an example: don't ask a man if he "can" do something, ask him if he "would." Conversely, ask a woman if she "can" as opposed to "would" and you'll get a better response. I still think that "hacker" is a good word because, to me, it still means a person with above average knowledge of computer systems.

There was a greek fellow who recognized the power of words. It was his passion and life's work. Unfortunately, I can't remember his name (Sophocles?) but he became an extremely persuasive fellow. He chose his words very carefully. I believe this was one of the writers L Ron Hubbard studied before he wrote "Dianetics."

Getting back to the point: while we are (as a society) seemingly going through a "dumbing-down" process, anyone in any position of power (including lawyers) knows that if something is worded correctly they are able sway results in their favor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe C Brown, 22 Nov 2006 @ 7:19am

"the law itself treats these rights differently than those involving physical property. To give three examples from US law, copyright infringement is not punishable by laws against theft or trespass, but rather by an entirely different set of laws with different penalties. Patent infringement is not a criminal offense although it may subject the infringer to civil liability. Willfully possessing stolen physical goods is a criminal offense while mere possessing of goods which infringe on copyright is not. Furthermore, in the United States physical property laws are generally part of state law, while copyright law is in the main measure federal."
- JB - Optimization Consulting
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CodeWarrior, 22 Nov 2006 @ 8:15am

"Intellectual property"
I agree wholehearedly with Tim Lee, and in my blogs and writings, have advocated use of the term "intangible property" or "virtual property" to indicate the non-tangible nature of copyrighted materials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CodeWarrior, 22 Nov 2006 @ 8:17am

Renaming "intellectual property"
See this link http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16630
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Billy The Blogging Poet, 22 Nov 2006 @ 11:13am

Hey Mike, I Found You A Roomie
Intellectual Property is property just like real estate or your grandmother's car-- steal it (or infringe upon it) and you can get in trouble. While some lawyer types will argue that IP isn't the same as real property their argument is simply semantics-- even the lawyers at Techdirt.com. There are some differences between tangible property and Intellectual Property with "Fair Use" being the most common but Intellectual Property can be bought, sold, traded, and destroyed just as your grandmother's car so for the sake of argument tell the lawyers at Techdirt.com to shove it up their... Well, you know where it goes. Besides, for the lawyer types out there, examples of fair use of private property exist as well. If you don't believe me then make you way over to the local mall and try to find out whose permission you need before you can enter the mall. Careful, the security guards might call the guys with butterfly nets and white jackets to fetch you home.

Intellectual Property isn't real property-- give me a break. No one taxes my arm and every lawyer in the world would back away from trying to prove that my arm doesn't belong to me.

Tell Mikie the new tenants will be moving in his office Monday morning...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim of Yorkshire, 22 Nov 2006 @ 3:43pm

Re: Hey Mike, I Found You A Roomie
Actually there IS a very, very significant difference between tangible physical property and so-called "intellectual property": alienation. Alienation is the term that describes what happens when a person sells the property. If I sell my car, I alienate myself from the car -- I can no longer legally use the car. I can however sell you my "intellectual property" without alienating myself from the "intellectual property". Just because I tell you my idea in return for a payment doesn't mean that I instantly forget the idea and can't re-think it.

Any way you cut it, so called "intellectual property" is ONLY considered property because a few laws say it is so. Those laws, btw, are pretty recent developments in human history - perhaps last 200 years at most (maybe 300 considering Statue of Anne). In contrast, physical property has been universally recognized since before recorded history began.
[ link to this | view in thread ]