The apparent problem I spotted is that I suggest that I have ownership of the ‘bicycle’ concept and I also say, “But you can’t own a concept.”

The real problem is that the bicycle ‘concept’ is ambiguous between
(a) that which all bicycles have in common in virtue of which they are bicycles, and
(b) a mental representation of the bicycle.

Now that the ambiguity in ‘concept’ is resolved, the problem goes away. No one owns “that which all bicycles have in common in virtue of which they are bicycles” but everyone owns his own mental representation of the bicycle.

Take two extreme views on what constitutes “that which all bicycles have in common in virtue of which they are bicycles,” Platonism and nominalism. According to Platonism, that which all bicycles have in common in virtue of which they are bicycles is that they all partake of the Platonic form of the bicycle. No one can own Platonic forms. According to nominalism, that which all bicycles have in common in virtue of which they are bicycles is that they are members of the set of all bicycles. No one can own membership of a set.

No one can own the bicycle (type). Anyone can own a bicycle (token). So I have argued!

English is a bit confusing with regards to distinctions between all sorts of things. But it keeps philosophers and pedants in business.

It’s an interesting point you make about conceptual models of songs vs. conceptual models of bicycles. Of course, you can have a physical copy of a song (a conceptual model of a copy of a song is a copy of song) in your head, but you can’t have a physical copy of a bicycle in your head.

My understanding is that copyright law makes exceptions for such intracranial copies. It also makes exceptions for humming songs while in the shower, and for singing songs around boy scout campfires. These are ad hoc exceptions. Ad hockery is usually a sign that the theory is flawed. Indeed, the notion of copyright is flawed. As I expect you already noticed, I think that the whole idea of “intellectual property” is a crock!

The only things that matter are how well the laws about copyright/patent encourages innovation and new ideas, and how well it spreads those ideas for general use.

The only things that matter? Your comment reminds me of the first paragraph of the first chapter of a book I once started reading. (I didn’t read much past the first paragraph.)

It has turned out fortunate for me to-day that destiny appointed Braunau-on-the-Inn to be my birthplace. For that little town is situated just on the frontier between those two States the reunion of which seems, at least to us of the younger generation, a task to which we should devote our lives and in the pursuit of which every possible means should be employed.

The author of the book thought that “every possible means should be employed” in pursuit of what he deemed to be “the only thing that mattered.” The rest, as they say, is history.

Encouraging innovation and new ideas is a noble ideal, but it must not be at the expense of the inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nor at the expense of property rights in tangible goods, nor at the expense of my right to use my own ideas—even if my ideas are the same as yours, and even if I got my ideas from you. They are still my ideas. They are mine because they reside in my head. They are part of me.

In economics, to copy is to compete. Competition is the lifeblood of capitalism. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for mutual benefit. As a libertarian and a humanitarian, I advocate and applaud capitalism.

The only things that matter are how well the laws about copyright/patent encourages innovation and new ideas, and how well it spreads those ideas for general use.

Example 1:
If patents were permanent, and universally enforced, then personal reward for invention would be huge. However, very few people would have acess to the invention, which almost defeats the purpose of inventing anything. Not an optimum solution in my book.

Example 2:
Conversly, if patents didn’t exist, noone but those few people in the position to instantly impliment good ideas would bother to come up with them, as they would quickly be copied and inplimented by someone else.
People wouldn’t invent things because they would get no personal reward from the act. Again, few inventions would be made available to people overall.

The solution is a middle ground patent length, balancing individual reward with benefit to general society: the patent length that generates the most new inventions.

Also, why not make patents only apply to organisations that run for a profit? I’d set it up that way, if i ever invented something. Just a thought =)

I’d also say, English is a bit confusing with regards to distinctions between token (or thing or object) and type (or form or class). When I say ‘the bicycle’, I could mean the type, as in “The bicycle was invented in the nineteenth century. It has two wheels.”, or I could mean a specific token, as in “The bicycle was found a block away. It has a flat tire.” So when you say “But you can’t own the bicycle (type).”, the English sentence could apply to a token or the type. I do own the bicycle, and now that I’ve got it back I’m going to fix the tire.

I’d just like to point out (before anyone else does) that the logic in my post is not quite right. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to spot the problem(s). Nothing that can’t easily be fixed, so my conclusion still holds.

Also, it is very very obvious where the comic came from. The entire image is one giant link back to it! It is not as if we’re hiding anything here or claiming it is ours

No one noticed that “Nobody’s gonna tell us we can’t share stolen media!” and “I don’t support piracy at all, no matter what half-assed justification you want to spin on it” are slurs against what this organisation stands for?
Is PPNZ going to be printing and selling T-shirts with it as some sort of protest action? Or is it a reflection that the PP would be happy to ‘burn the sky’ rather than just drawing and hosting copyright-free comic strips at their own expense?

“I don’t support piracy at all, no matter what half-assed justification you want to spin on it, but if these guys manage to run their website from sky-servers, I will give them quite the hearty Citizen Kane clap.”