Well, yes, that's pretty much exactly the viewpoint I'm espousing here. :-) That is, that ideas cannot be owned and I disagree with the artificial scarcity created by governments.
The entire point of patent and copyright is (in the US): "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
So it's government granting specific rights over intellectual items not the items themselves.
The name is confusing, it's rights granted over intellectual property ("writings and discoveries") to encourage the creators to share them for the common good.
The manifestation of that is ownership over ideas. If I recite the Harry Potter series to someone and they copy it down and publish it, they've violated copyright. That only happens because IP grants ownership over the idea (the story of Harry Potter) itself.
I'm not sure if we are agreeing and just missing each other on the words, it if there is something more substantive between us?
