Violent revolution is a solution to a problem too, but if we have a system that includes that solution we might want to rethink it (well, we likely won’t have to). Patent trollies are entities that exist to profit off stifling the innovation of others - if they are the solution we need to change the problem. You are right though that when businesses protect intellectual property they are using we don’t call them trollies, that’s because they aren’t trollies.
This is a sensible suggestion. With mandatory licensing the inventor can profit but everyone else can go ahead and use the thing even if the inventor doesn’t have the interest or means to produce it. If someone else immediately makes a much better version it isn’t kept off the market, but we still honor the notion that society must drastically enrich the first guy who got to the patent office because great individuals and not broad cultural advancement that is expressed through individuals chosen at random are responsible for getting us where we are.
Elsewhere you say that Hadfield could release a recording of the song subject to automatic licensing (or did someone else say that, maybe I’m confused). But if this is the case then he can’t.
You are conflating different meanings of the word “own.” Of course I own my organs in a sense that almost anyone would agree with, and of course they are my property colloquially. Property is colloquially anything that we thing of as ours, and legally a think that we have an absolute right to use, dispose of, and prevent others from using.
Legally whether or not the your body or your thoughts are your property probably varies from place to place, but either they are or they aren’t. If they aren’t then they aren’t. If they are then forced taking of your organs is absolutely theft, even if the police and prosecutors don’t charge as such. If someone takes your kidney, ask the police to lay theft charges along with the assault and whatever other charges happen. I think the US these charges would stick (if I recall, the body is property of the individual in the US).
Either way it doesn’t matter what the legal definition is. If I say someone stole my idea, I say so knowing that they haven’t taken my property in a legal sense. I may be doing anything from employing a metaphor, to using a phrase, to exaggerating to express how I feel about the situation. I honestly don’t know if my thoughts are my property in any legal sense or not, but I know that people had thoughts before anyone had a concept of property that we would recognize. And I know that people had secrets, even secrets they used to make or build things, before there was anything like a legal idea of property.
Unless you think the platonic ideal of property existed before people stumbled across it and modeled their thinking after it. I don’t think you think this, because it is transparently, factually wrong.
