case "$RANT" in
	"Intellectual Property")
It would be interesting to discover how far a seriously critical view of the benefits to society of the law of copyright or the expression of doubts about the public interest in the existence of a class which makes its living from the writing of books would have a chance of being publicly stated in a society in which the channels of expression are so largely controlled by people who have a vested interest in the existing situation. - F. A. Hayek Intellectual property is one of the most stupid things I've ever been forced to comply with. You can't own a pattern of words. You can own a physical book, not every physical embodiment of a certain pattern of words. You know what I own? My pen and paper, my keyboard and computer, my printer and so on. And you (should) have no rights to tell me what I can do with my property. Information is just an arrangement of objects. The fact that you can "own" an arrangement of words comes in conflict with the property rights of the paper that text is written on. If I own this paper and ink, how can you have any say in the way I arrange my property? Patents and copyrights are unjustifiable monopolies granted by the government. Trademarks are fine and can be handled through fraud protection: If you pretend to be someone else, you can (and should) be sued for fraud. When you advocate for certain laws you have to ask yourself: Is it right to use force and coercion through the state against other people? The answer is no. Suggested reading: Against Intellectual Property - N. Stephan Kinsella