If you don’t know already, words have meaning. Additionally, sometimes words can have multiple definitions. Yet again, words can be linked into phrases, and those phrases can have meaning. I’m sure this is all very surprising if you’re not an etymologist, I know.

A fascinating observation is that sometimes, some words and phrases become popular, and implictly shape perception on the things they’re describing. Some choice words and phrases can oftentimes sneak their way into common parlance to describe certain subjects, but unfortunately, fail to properly illustrate the concepts they’re describing, or mislead you into what the concept actually is. Sometimes, it’s done insidiously; organizations and persons with enough recognition can use these terms and those who are none the wiser can fall for their trap.

Let’s see how we can avoid them!

“Intellectual property”

Front and center, this is by far pretty much one of the most fiendish phrases out there. If you asked somebody on the street to define “intellectual property”, they’d probably paint a vague picture of an association between several separate sets of laws; copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, likely more. The phrase not only sees common use in the legal world, but it permeates broadly across many fields. Whenever you see the acronym “IP”, it’s likely that it’s not referring to “Internet Protocol”, but this term instead.

So if you asked me about my opinion on the phrase, why would you witness me display such raw, extreme contempt for it?

What is property, anyway?

For starters, let’s break down what the term so nebulously describes. It casts a wide umbrella across many different legal concepts, and paints them as “property”.

Well, what’s property, really? Property, at least to me, is something physical; if you purchase a juicy and sweet cantaloupe from the local farmer’s market, there’s a tacit agreement that it’s your property. It is a physical, tangible thing with scarcity; if you accidentally drop your cantaloupe on the way out of the store, well, you’ve just lost one good cantaloupe, and you no longer have it. You can give your cantaloupe to a friend, whether it be a donation or by purchasing it; once you’ve relinquished it to him, it’s no longer your property.

Is anything what “intellectual property” ascribes truly “property”? Not really. None of what it covers is truly tangible, as property is, and certainly does not have scarcity. Property can be held as long as you or someone you trust with it is around to possess it; something like copyright is finite and will be relinquished once enough time has passed, or there is no governing body to uphold your monopoly.

When somebody insists that something like copyright is property, it is subterfuge; they are persuading you to believe that the copyright they hold is that equal to that of the cantaloupe. If you infringe upon their copyright, you are no better than a thief…despite nothing tangible ever being lost.

Much the same can be said for the other subjects the phrase covers, but copyright is an excellent example of its maliciousness. This is the point I would like to drive in: nothing of what it describes is truly “property”, and the term really only benefits those who abuse the concepts it covers.

A Failed Distinction

Do you know what copyright is? How about trademarks? Patents? You might have a vague idea. I’m not expecting you to be a lawyer; if we’re talking about distinguishing legal concepts, even normies know the difference between homicide and manslaughter, so why have I witnessed such an incredible amount of conflation between these laws? I think much of the blame can be placed on the popularity of this term. Let’s start with what the laws ACTUALLY are, in a simple manner.

A copyright is an automatic monopoly granted by the government to an author or publisher concerning a creative work. With this monopoly, the copyright holder solely determines how any reproduction of the work is handled; by default, any sort of unauthorized copying and modification is restricted, unless enabled in a license. Copyright in the United States, at the time of writing this, usually lasts the life of an author plus seventy years, or ninety-five years for a corporate publication, whichever is shorter. Once the copyright expires, the work enters into the public domain, where there are no restrictions to it whatsoever.

A patent is a monopoly that must be registered by the government’s patent office, and it concerns mechanical innovations; whether it be machines, pharmaceuticals, etc. When granted a patent, only the patent holder can authorize how the innovation is used; by default, nobody else can employ the innovation except the patent holder. Patents in the United States typically last about twenty years.

A trademark is a symbol, word, image, logo, mark, etc. that distinguishes a good or service to its registrant; when something is trademarked, you know it has to originate from the trademark holder, ensuring its authenticity. Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely, provided the registrant still exists and is willing to renew it.

A trade secret is a bit more complicated, but generally, it’s a bit of information that holds economic value in which its proprietor takes measures to keep hidden; a “secret recipe” is a good example. Any sort of information kept secret by a company tends to fall under the category of a trade secret.

Looking at all of these laws, had you only known about “intellectual property” before, you might be surprised in how distinct they truly are! I’ve had many conversations in which I’m speaking with someone who uses the phrase (or its acronym), and I’m in awe in how they continue to fumble them because their mind tends to be so entrenched in the term. Rejecting the term will only do you favors in your clarity concerning these laws, and it’s for the best you learn to see past it.

There are more niche, obscure laws that “intellectual property” tends to cover, but those laws don’t tend to emerge in conversation often, and as I’ve stated before, it would certainly help if you distinguished them.

Who benefits?

“Intellectual property” is a pervasive term, and it’s unfortunate, as it’s evident that it holds incredible bias. Like a smoke bomb, it surronds things in a miasma of confusion and blindness.

Whoever benefits from “intellectual property”’s confusion is often groups or companies who abuse the laws it so confusingly covers. In some verbage or press statements from entertainment companies, you’ll hear “protecting their intellectual property” constantly, a sentence so biased in their favor that it makes my head spin. Their business stems on the fact that they hold a plethora of copyrights, restricting the public in a wealth of artistic works, and they’re oh-so willing to send out waves of Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns to those who don’t obey their wishes. Looking at you, Nintendo!

If you couldn’t tell, I have many grievances with copyright law; that is a discussion for later, but before that, I think it’s imperative to acknowledge the harm “intellectual property” causes in these debates, and I think it’s best that we all learn to reject it and see it the term as it really is: corporate propaganda!

Franchise? Naw, IP!

“Intellectual property” has also come into use when referring to a distinct artistic, potentially with multiple “entries” in the same universe…there’s words for this that reflect the meaning so much better? “Franchise” is one; “series” is another, even “universe” could potentially work. Fiction is not property, and please stop treating it as such with this dreadful term.

Recommendation

Refer to laws by their lonesome; if you are discussing copyright, say “copyright”. If you are discussing patents, say “patents”, If you are discussing trademarks, say “trademarks”. If you are discussing trade secrets, say “trade secrets”. and so and on so forth. If you’re talking about a connected series of artistic works whose copyrights are held by a person or organization, use the term “franchise” or “brand”.

You’ll be so much more clear and coherent in your conversations when you’ve not been ensnared by this term’s vacuity. I will thank you. Richard Stallman will thank you.

“Creator”

“Creator” is a word that may seem harmless, but it has some consequences from what it implies.

Let’s say you recorded a video. You render it, you publish it online. Congratulations, you are now apparently entitled to the term “creator” and have people worship you, as if you were a divine being or something. It’s unfortunate, as there’s not really a substitute for the word “creativity”, as the word “creator” paints a rather narcisstic image of those who use the term.

Referencing the past discussion about “intellectual property”, the term also benefits those who exploit copyright law; no longer are they authors, they are “creators”, and their works will are “property” to them, and you’re no better than a THIEF for disrespecting THEIR “property”.

The word isn’t as offensive as others, but I bring it up here as there’s another word it’s fused with to spur an unholy abomination: “content creator”.

Recommendation

“Author” works in most contexts. It may be a bit awkward in some, but the point is clear: just because someone has published something does not make them a deity!

“Content”

There’s been an unfortunate trend, especially within the past few years, of the word “content” expanding out and describing just about anything. Even the static site generator I’m using to make this site has a “content” folder!

The word has its use in some contexts; the emotion for example, an unrelated definition, but also for an catch-all term for “stuff”. “The present and the contents within”. That’s fine and respectable, but there’s been a distressing trend in which it describes just about anything. Videos, pictures, posts, books, any sort of work like that. It’s all just “content”! A slurry of STUFF to be DIGESTED and FORGOTTEN. You watch a movie, view a show, read a book, humor at some meme; great, because it’s “content”, indistinguishable food to be digested, processed, abandoned.

It’s even worse when paired with “creator”. Behold, a “content creator”. What on Earth does that mean? Someone who publishes…stuff. Awesome. I’ve seen it paired with people who tend to use video sharing services like YouTube and regularly release videos; they’re not “filmmakers”, “videographers”, “video uploaders”, “broadcasters”, what have you, but something that really is both vacuous and biased. If you prompted someone who authors videos and uses the term, I think they’d have some dissonance if you challenged them about it, no? If you regularly authored videos, would you want someone saying that your videos are essentially nothing but cattlefeed, “consumed” and forgotten? There’s a hypocrisy with the term; these “creators” are above you, and yet what they give you is nothing but forgettable trite.

“Content” is used in many more contexts, and I have grievances with nigh all of them. We should just learn to clarify what this “content” precisely is rather than demeaning it with a word to indicate worthlessness and everyone would be better off.

Recommendation

Say what it is instead of devaluing artistic or informative merit. It’s a video, not “content”. It’s a website, not “content”. It’s an illustration, not “content”!! For a “content creator”, look at what they’re actually publishing and refer to them by a more proper, humbling title!

“Theft”, “Steal”

If you haven’t already noticed, much of these terms tend to be used regularly with the same sorts of contexts, painting a rather dystopic image…anyways, now why is “theft” problematic? What’s it gonna be this time?

Well, I’m not talking about, y’know, ACTUAL theft. If some ne’er-do-well deprived me of my cantaloupe and yoinked it from my hands, I would be perfectly of sound mind to refer to such a thing as “theft”. I’m referring to “theft” when it’s used in contexts that are not…actually…theft.

“Copying is not theft!” You might’ve heard that expression, and yeah, it’s TRUE. If I copy something, I am not depriving you of it. If it’s your property and I take it, yes, that’s theft, but if I copy it, that’s one for each of us! This is the issue here.

There’s been a worrying trend of people decrying about “art theft”. Well, did somebody break into the Louvre and steal the Mona Lisa, the physical painting? No..? They just reposted your work on the internet..? Well, it’s not “art theft”, then!! Nothing is being stolen! That’s copying!

Another issue with the word “theft” is the word being used to describe something totally distinct from it: misattribution, plagiarism, or fraud. That’s a totally different issue entirely!

CLAIMING I authored something you authored, DUPLICATING something you authored, and physically TAKING a physical piece of art you authored are all very distinct things, and there are words to describe each of them: “plagiarism”, “copying”, and “theft”, accordingly! But no, “theft” or “steal” is used as a replacement for the other two…which doesn’t work at all!

Copying is something I see no issue with, whatsoever…but that’s an issue for another day. Misattribution though is an issue. Not a major one, but it does feel unethical, even to a nut like me. Saying you authored something somebody else did is just foolish. You’re only making yourself look like a fool when you’re found out (incredibly easy these days with the plethora of discovery tools), and devaluing the work of the original author. It’s a ticking time bomb. It’ll mostly blow up on YOU at the end of the day. A discussion for later, though…for now, understand how to properly use the word “theft”!

Recommendation

If somebody steals a physical object; that’s “theft”. If somebody copies something with the copyright holder’s permission, that’s “copyright infringement” or “unauthorized copying”. If somebody states they’ve authored something they actually didn’t, that’s “plagiarism”, “fraud” or “misattribution”!

“Piracy”

I have a love and hate relationship with this term. On one hand, it’s incredibly rude to equate people who perform file sharing that is unauthorized by the copyright holder to legitimate criminals who pillage, kill, or kidnap at sea. On the other, I think it’s pretty fun to be called a “pirate”. However, it’s probably for the best we move past the term for clarity’s sake and to remove bias.

“Piracy” is really a propaganda term to impeach the character of those who commit copyright infringement. That’s the extent of it, really, though the term “pirate” nowadays tends to be specifically for digital pirates, those people who commit copyright infringement over the net, whether it be peer-to-peer or finding some cool 240p rip from watchcartoonsonline.org that links to a .exe that installs a Monero mining program on your computer.

The term has a long history dating back centuries, and in just about every single context it’s been used to decry those who commit copyright infringment as vicious maritime criminals. However, people who do so gallantly commit copyright infringement have sort of inherited the word as their own identity.

For those who have embraced the term, it’s unfortunate that the insults concerning the practice will continue to spread, but at the same time, it IS pretty fun to be called a pirate. I’m not too miffed about it, but I would prefer if it wasn’t so commonplace.

Recommendation

Copying without the permission of the copyright holder is “copyright infringement”. Dudes who rob, rape and murder at sea are the true pirates, here.

Conclusion

If you’re well-read, you may have noticed much of these words stem from Richard Stallman’s own “Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing”. In truth, much of the words here also have complaints in his article, and they’re echoed here, with a bit of my own perspetive. Stallman has a far more elaborate list, told more concisely, and I agree with him on just about every one.

It’s unfortunate that a lot of language has been co-opted for nefarious intentions, and how their spread has harmed public perception of some genuine issues. For the scant few who read this, I hope you’ve learned to question some of the words you may use in some contexts, and will choose to adapt more fitting, clear, unbiased and ultimately just plain better verbage for the situations where they’re appropriate.

>mfw someone says "intellectual property" in passing conversation

Takeaway

Don’t say “intellectual property” ever or I will strangle you.

Don’t say “content”, say the medium in question.

Don’t say “creator”, say “author”.

Don’t say “piracy”, say “copyright infringement”.

Don’t say “theft” or “steal”, say “plagiarize” or “fraud” or “infringed on copyright”, based on the context.

Thanks, have a good day!