Wikipedia:Peer review/Copyleft/archive1

Copyleft
Is the first paragraph of Copyleft sufficently NPOV? In particular, should the use of the phrase 'intellectual property regime' be replaced by 'intellectual property law'? 'Regime' is generally but not always perjorative, but I don't believe that is the case when speaking of a body of law. Anybody know if there's a specific legal meaning? Google reveals the phrase 'intellectual property regime' seems to be used in a neutral sense, for example in the Australian Government's announcement of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Regardless, in the context of the sentence, which is to describe the point of copyleft, any of these sorts of laws are frowned upon. Does this make it ok? On the third hand, what I really mean by the phrase is 'intellectual property body of law' and I believe this really is the established meaning of the phrase 'intellectual property regime', which reads better. I haven't had to deal with NPOV before so it seems safest to ask. (As far as the rest of the article goes, I don't know that it's ready for peer review.) -- kop 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * the very term intellectual property its self is POV and is in many ways quite undefined. It's better to specify what you mean; e.g. say copyright, trademark or patent, which are properly defined terms.  Intellectual Property regime, is not POV in the sense that you worry about, however; it's standard usage by people who talk about "intellectual property".  Mozzerati 21:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)


 * Um, the first sentence doesn't make any sense anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)