[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I think the baseball example is at all fair...

[/ QUOTE ]

then try to address the part of the post where I gave serious examples. Specifically: given your logic that the amount of enjoyment I get out of an act is relevant to its product's ability to become IP, IF I dont enjoy making music can it be IP? OR, if an inventor likes inventing, does that make it not IP?


also: it appears you want to say that whether or not something becomes IP has to do with how the supply of that thing would change without it becoming IP. Since inventors would likely invent less without IP, you're OK with it. But, since you seem to think that musicians would continue to play without IP, then that makes it different.


I dont disagree that removing IP laws would have a worse effect on inventing than music, but, since there are undoubtedly *some* inventors who would continue to invent without IP and some musicians who would stop playing without IP, your argument relies on some level of damage that makes IP OK, that you seem to have arbitrarily chosen.