Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 09:37:31 -0400

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Do you have any anecdotes involving Richard Posner, Larry Rosen, Larry
> Lessig, Eben Moglen, or yourself you'd like to present?  If there are
> traps of generalization any of those experts (or experts of similar
> stature) have fallen into, I'll be quite likely to concede your point.
> 
> Can you document ordinary people making an honest effort to understand
> the differences among the laws, and nonetheless falling into false
> generalizations?  Again I'd concede your point.

Do you have any anecdotes involving ordinary people working to discuss
and reform ineffective laws and practices (that give unjust preference to 
individuals) when those people do not understand the laws?

You argue against bad propaganda, and false generalizations, but bad propaganda 
is by definition a deliberate partial truth meant to persuade.

How is being MORE specific, by avoiding the term "intellectual property", bad 
propaganda? [1]  Isn't it the other way around?

Forrest

[1] - Many people use the word "propaganda" to mean "bad or misleading 
propaganda."  The definition includes no negative connotation.