The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias of “intellectual property” suits them.

one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed. Patent law has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics.

people who've "had their property stolen" are a lot more sympathetic in the public imagination than "industrial entities who've had the contours of their regulatory monopolies violated", the latter being the more common way of talking about infringement until the ascendancy of "intellectual property" as a term of art.

facts are not copyrightable, so no one can be said to "own" your address, National Insurance Number or the PIN for your ATM card. Nevertheless, these are all things that you have a strong interest in, and that interest can and should be protected by law.

there's plenty of stuff out there that's valuable even though it's not property. For example, my daughter was born on February 3, 2008. She's not my property. But she's worth quite a lot to me.

some scholars question the legitimacy and philosophical basis of such laws

the particular form or manner in which ideas or information are expressed or manifested, and not in relation to the ideas or concepts themselves

The shift in terminology towards "intellectual property" has coincided with a more general shift away from thinking about things like copyright and patent law as specific legal instruments designed to promote the common good and towards a conception of ideas as inviolable property granted by natural law.[8] The terminological shift coincides with the usage of pejorative terms for copyright infringement such as "piracy" and "theft".

Enforcement mechanisms such as digital rights management endanger existing consumer rights like fair use, and can be used to further tie creators to the corporate entities that control this technology since even a use which may be legally considered fair use may be hampered or rendered impossible by the technological restrictions. "Trusted computing" platforms may refuse to play, display or execute content that is not properly "certified" by central authorities.

Article 8 of the Berne Convention may have a chilling effect on freedom of speech

without copyright, it would be possible to use DRM without limitations, and fair use and copyleft would be impossible.

Student presentation and class discussion topics