If you take a short cut across the corner of my lawn to get from A to B where I live you’d have trouble recovering anything at all if I did no damage to the property on the way. I might be able to recover the costs of re-seeding that part of my lawn after four or five years but that’s about it. Of course, if I have to climb over a fence to do that it’s a whole different story.

Keep in mind though that when we talk about Real Estate we’re talking what’s called Real property. Not just that but my and your rights are firmly established from more than a thousand years of jurisprudence.

Let’s move on to copyright and patent law. Neither were ever intended to establish the rights holder with the same rights that a holder of real property has. In the case of the first copyright act (1709) the major trigger wasn’t the alleged “rights” of creators but to prevent publishers from bankrupting themselves by rushing the same titles and authors to market at the same time in order to get the best sales on what were hoped would be best sellers.

All either concepts do is confer a monopoly on copying something, one in text form, the other in terms of physical inventions until they fell into the public domain. And it was a much shorter trip to the public domain then than now in recognition of that privilege and lawmakers who recognized that the less time something was held in a monopoly the better. Neither were ever intended to confer anything near the rights held by owners of real tangible property.

Now. as for the United States wanting to declare my country a security risk if we don’t follow every jot, comma, semicolon and period of how people like you in the States interpret copyright, in particular, and patent law fill your boots. We’re always high on that fiction called the 301 list.

After that you may want to talk to American and Canadian troops who, for years, served cheek by jowl in Afghanistan about just how much of a risk we are. Then you might want to kill off NORAD and NATO.

All in defense of the fantasy called intellectual “property” “rights”. Not that creators and inventors shouldn’t be rewarded, they should be. But there is a difference between real tangible property and what’s covered by copyright and patent law.

Equating your rights where real tangible property is concerned with what’s covered by copyright and patents is a false dichotomy. And a logical fallacy.

Which pretty much covers the duties defined for the “co-coordinator for cyber issues”.

You can feel what you want and post what you want but your comparison is still a fallacy and no amount of stamping your feet is going to change that.