Similarly, economists Boldrin and Levine favor to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more proper and clear meaning of the idea, which they argue, is dissimilar from property rights.
On the assumption that intellectual property rights are real
rights Stallman argues that this assert doesn't live to the historical intentions behind these laws, which in tadminhe case of served as a censorship system, and afterward on, a regulatory model for the printing press that may benefited authors incidentally, but never interfered with the freedom of average readers. Still referring to , he cites legal literature like the United States Constitution and case law to show that it's supposed to be an optional and experimental bargain that temporarily trades property rights and free speech for public, not private, benefit in the form of increased artistic production and knowledge. He mentions that "if were a natural right nothing could rationalize terminating this right after some period of time".
Law professor, writer and political activist Lawrence Lessig, with many other copyleft and free software activists, criticized the implied analogy with physical property like land or an car. They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is usually rivalrous while intellectual works are non rivalrous that's, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy doesn't prevent enjoyment of the original. Other arguments along these lines assert that unlike the situation with tangible property, there's no natural shortage of a specific idea or information: once it exists at all, it may be re used and duplicated indefinitely without such re use diminishing the original. Stephan Kinsella objected to intellectual property on the grounds that the word "property" implies shortage, which may not be related to ideas.
Entrepreneur and politician Rickard Falkvinge and hacker Alexandre Oliva have independently compared George Orwell's fictional dialect Newspeak to the terminology used by intellectual property supporters as a linguistic weapon to form public opinion about debate and DRM.