Talk:Intellectual protectionism

Put some thoughts together for Intellectual Protectionism, but someone more capable should refine this page and give it legs/links. Good luck :)

POV, OR, confusion
This article is highly confusing. For starters, I doubt that the intro captures what most authors mean when they use the term. There is not a single coherent paragraph in this article. Algae 12:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Individuals who create visual works of art, music, or software which can be easily exchanged via the Internet are at the greatest disadvantage in a capitalist-based society" Says who? Why?
 * "proponents of intellectual protectionism often argue that the lack of economic security of such individuals requires some form of security/protection" Only proponents of intellectual protectionism argue for some form of security/protection?
 * Is "Give credit where credit is due" an important principle only for proponents of "Intellectual Protectionism"?

Rewritten

I have attempted a rewrite to try an make it clearer. I am no particular expert on the subject, but it seemed like the article was implying the opposite of what I understand the term to mean. If you have comments let me know (forgot to log in when posting in the edit, which is why rewrite is anonymous on the history page). Starpol 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rerewritten Have a look at my take Mateo LeFou 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Response Supportive of bulletising the second paragraph but the rerewrite has introduced more weasel words like 'many' and 'it is concluded' which need to be edited or substantiated. It probably needs an expert on the subject to expand and reference the article. Starpol 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * hm. I think it's better than it was. But there's still some confusion and I think I know why: you don't specify *what these arguments are "for" and "against". The term "intellectual property" is misleading and I never use it; but this doesn't mean that I'm opposed to copyright on principle. "Intellectual protectionism" is a derogatory term for the regime in which such laws have been coopted to benefit a few. These are arguments *for and *against the treatment of creative works as property; but this term is mostly used w/r/t the U.S.'s (+ TRIPS, WIPO's) specific *way of protecting these works -- i.e. the current legal/historical situation. Mateo LeFou 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I see what you are getting at. Maybe you could add a bit on the specifics you refer to above? Would help to add some context? Starpol 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ick, my first sentence is a bad run on, but i think we're getting there.

Suggestion to redirect
This term is not used often, and even the quote here does not use it. It looks like a dictionary definition combined with an island of criticism about IP. I will merge and redirect this to Intellectual property if no one objects. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The term is indeed seldom used (Google hits 1570), and the current article seems unfocused and needs improvement.  Still, erasing it in favor of making it a grafted branch of the topic it opposes tends to imply that the resultant twig is a mere attribute of its parent tree.  Imagine one article on the history of the Democratic Party that mentions Republicans under critics, with no separate GOP article.  If an article like Intellectual protectionism should be made a twig, it should be a twig of something it's logically harmonious with, instead of its opposite.  --AC 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I can't think of an article like that (Free Culture movement seems too far off the mark). As-is, this term is a POV neologism, and I think it should go somewhere else. Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait. What about Anti-copyright? Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. It's doubtful that most American critics of IP as a concept are against copyrights as conceived by the founders, i.e. as limited monopolies under civil law to promote art and science, the better to encourage self interested and secretive innovators to make discoveries public.  Rather what most "Intellectual Property" critics oppose is the subversive tendency of redefining copyright as a de facto unlimited monopoly, or attempting to combine its flexible civil law remedies with the more absolute powers of criminal law.


 * Think of a nation's arts and sciences like a Pizza -- we take it out of the oven after 10 or 15 minutes, because then it's done. We should not be called anti-Pizza if we object to a germ-phobic cook who wants to leave the Pizza in for 4 hours, and outlaw 10 minute Pizza, with policing, prison terms and mandatory fines.  --AC 06:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, most copyright critics are not anti-Copyright, but "Intellectual protectionism" is not "1787 intellectual property" or "intellectual reasonablism". This title&mdash;insofar that it's a neologism&mdash;is a very anti-IP subject and should be redirected appropriately. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm a little confused. What do '1787 IP' or 'intellectual reasonablism' mean?  As far as I know the term 'IP' didn't come into vogue until the 1960s -- what it might mean in 1787 is somewhat puzzling.  The term 'intellectual reasonablism' is new to me, it isn't in Wikipedia, and not even on Google.


 * The prefix "anti" can be tricky. "Anti" properly distinguishes two concepts that are logically contrary.  And "anti" tends to imply that the term it prefixes is the norm.  But IP and limited civil law copyright are merely logically contradictory, (which is to say they are two ways to achieve particular aims, but not necessarily the only ways), and in 2007 both concepts have many adherents; lacking any obvious general consensus, prefixing "anti" to either term amplifies POV.


 * Lastly, I agree that the topic might better be appropriately redirected, but disagree that it belongs in Anti-copyright, or that putting it there would more useful than further discussion, or even doing nothing.  --AC 06:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the other terms don't exist, but they were contrasting examples of things that might not fall into anti-Copyright. This does, however. "Protectionism" has very negative connotations as is demonstrated by real world use of the term. See for example, Controversies within libertarianism, which links here. "Still others believe that "intellectual property" is a euphemism for intellectual protectionism and should be abolished altogether."  In this case a redirect to anti-copyright looks appropriate to me. Cool Hand Luke 06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Protectionism" is another way of saying "tariff", or as Macaulay wrote: "a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers".  "Protectionism" isn't an especially negative or offensive term, at least not for the majority of non-libertarians; indeed Wikipedia's own article characterizes it as a standard economics term used without difficulty by opponents and advocates alike.


 * The new categorization seems Black & White. For the majority of critics the issue isn't copyright versus "anti-copyright", or protection versus none whatsoever, but the particular degree of how much protection is good enough.  14 years, or 28, 50, or for life, life plus 50, 60, 80... or forever.  Filing this relatively moderate term in the radical bin with anti-copyright seems akin to filing a moderate tax relief bill under "anti-taxation".  --AC 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the copyright debate, but the black and white problem is a fault with the content at Anti-Copyright and elsewhere. This is a neologism, and an article does not belong here. It appears that the neologism is used almost exclusively by those who oppose copyrights in a much stronger sense that the Free Culture folks, therefore this is an appropriate redirect. "Protectionism" is a much more critical and negatively-loaded term for IP than the technically correct definition "monopoly", so it's not surprising that its critics use the term. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide any disinterested citation or data to corroborate that "protectionism" is a "negatively-loaded term". To the best of my understanding it's a generally neutral term with negative connotations only for opposing factions who use it as a buzzword.  Similar to the dismay some Catholics feel on hearing the term 'Protestant', which  an old joke relies on for its punchline.  Ditto for Protestants; on a recent Moral Orel episode, "Presents for God", Orel visits Sinville; a kindly native introduces himself as a Catholic (instantly turning red and evil-looking) and frightens little Orel.


 * Wikipedia's own article on protectionism characterizes it as a standard economics term used by opponents and advocates alike. What makes it tolerable there and bugbear here?  --AC 05:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)