I would certainly hope that he wouldn't conclude that. That level of certainty/hyperbole/condescension is either the Dunning-Kruger effect in action (AKA the "overconfident CS undergrad effect" on tech forums) or the mark of someone who would much rather embrace an exciting falsehood than spend a lifetime seeking messy and often unattainable truths (AKA why we can't have nice things).
By that standard, one can never condemn any existing state of the world.
I am actually willing to compromise in that nominal imaginary property isn't the worst idea (especially as applied to the commercial realm), but only after its industries accept its limitations and stop attacking anything that prevents them from having iron-clad absolute control (attacking justice by extorting IP addresses, attacking end-user computing via DRM, attacking communications and privacy through six strikes, attacking self-determination by forcing their laws onto other countries, attacking the distributed Internet through streaming).
Until that happens, they are a malevolent pest that must be starved, as any money sent their way just supports destroying the future.
No, people can condemn whatever they want. I don't think having a healthy skepticism in all things precludes having strong opinions about what's wrong with the world, in fact I agree with much of the basis of what you're saying. Heck, just a few months ago I walked away from several thousand dollars that I could've had just for letting someone put my name on a software patent. It would've been nothing to me to do that, but I know I would've felt dirty because of my views on software patents.
If all you want to do is preach to the choir, fine, but if you care about making a difference in the world by changing the minds of people who either don't know about these things or are on the fence about it, then your choice of words is going to drive away fence sitters and possibly discredit others who are on your side.
This is exactly what RMS does, and it hasn't exactly worked well for him. Look at the phrases you use: "imaginary property", "attacking justice", "destroying the future". Those are strong words with loaded meaning- just using phrases like that is a rhetorical trick that most people are going to see through immediately. Those kinds of words should be reserved for things which are facepalmingly obvious; simple binary issues which have no gray areas, and are not things on which reasonable people can disagree in any respect. The fact that you present it in such a way is going to be interpreted by the audience in one of two ways:
(1) You really believe that all (or almost all) IP law the world over is really one of those blindingly obvious binary issues relating to basic morality that has few or no gray areas, to the degree that you don't care about changing anyone's mind; in fact, you would like to shame anyone who disagrees with you or is on the fence about any aspect it. You put it up there with pedophilia and ethnic cleansing and all the other things for which there is pretty much absolute consensus on in most of the developed world.
- or -
(2) You know how complicated it all is, and the history and rationale for it and so on, but you think that the people you're talking to are lesser minds who are only going to be swayed by hyperbolic, emotional language and loaded terminology.
Either way, it's not constructive, and may actually be destructive to the cause (again, see RMS/PETA/Earth First/etc.). I don't think that's where you're coming from- I think you mean well and are probably young and very passionate about this stuff, and for the most part I think you're on the right side and hopefully on the side of history. I just remember spending years with much the same mindset, without even realizing it, and it didn't help anyone. Another danger of using bile and invective and loaded terminology as a form of argumentation is that after a while you might start believing it yourself, in which case (1) and/or (2) become not just what you're mistakenly communicating but what you actually believe. And that is the path to the Dark Side. :(
I don't disagree that the term 'imaginary property' is a bit middle-finger childish, but it was easier than rebutting OP's use of 'IP' and singling out copyright. By admitting terms like 'intellectual property' to your vernacular, you're allowing things to be framed in a non-beneficial way and setting yourself up for failure. "If we respect property rights, then why should we not respect intellectual property?", etc.
> This is exactly what RMS does, and it hasn't exactly worked well for him
I disagree. People pick on RMS for weirdness, but he's been providing a steady viewpoint while things continually degrade. "Right to Read" used to be some far off future scenario, seemingly hyperbolic at the time. The reason he's been so constantly spot on is that he hasn't been pandering to the current conditions of the world, but talking directly about abstract concepts and how they clash.
> You really believe that all [copyright] the world over is really one of those blindingly obvious binary issues ... to the degree that you don't care about changing anyone's mind
Yes, I actually don't care about changing anyone's mind about this with rhetoric, as my entire argument is that personal-use copyright will be made obsolete by communication technologies. Lack of copyright innately rubs people the wrong way (especially USians), and so the same effort that will convince one person through this route is better placed convincing several people (in the proper context) to cut the cord and setup vpn+torrent for pure cost reasons.
Since the two concepts are opposed, the corresponding positive idealistic argument is to preserve and promote the Internet (net neutrality, ISP competition) etc, which I do agree it is worthwhile to convince people of at an idealistic level - even if that just empowers them to politically push back against companies they're wed to directly supporting.
