Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality

[jbn@forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson-Owens)]

/alessandro wrote:
> The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested.

Yes, specificity is the recommended alternative.  The page
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty)
says:

  "To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or
  write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as
  copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing."

So if you are talking about copyright law, say "copyright law", if you are
talking about patent law say "patent law", and so on.

> We in Italy tendo to use "intellectual patrimony" (like heritage) or
> "intellectual paternity" (like parenthood), according to the context.

According to how I read the FSF's page, the problem is not avoided by using
another phrase to replace "intellectual property".

Any opinions you convey about copyright (for instance) probably are not true
for patents, and vice versa.  So it is nearly impossible to have a fruitful
discussion trying to talk all these disparate areas of law simultaneously.