Reading back, what I wrote was rather different from what I meant...
Firstly, as CalmStorm has pointed out, I used the term 'pirate' to mean 'illegal downloader'. I suspect that was intended to refer to the attitude a proprietary software developer would likely hold towards those who source their software through unofficial channels; regardless, I don't believe the term is appropriate even for the least moral users of such channels. I apologize for that, and (inasmuch as I can) withdraw that misuse of the class.
As for the use, and justification, of the term 'intellectual property', certain components failed to reflect both my views and (as has been highlighted) the reality of the situation. I acknowledge that the phrase is overused- often in ways which obscure (intentionally or not) key differences- and, indeed, the third and (perhaps) second uses of the term in my post were unnecessary. However, it would still appear that, whilst valid arguments can be made against the phrase, it isn't necessarily a total waste (although its vacuous use is a serious problem- more generally, vacuous statements are a problematic staple of business communication).
@Magic Banana: Thank you for the article. Several good points are made, but (to me) RMS does exaggerate the generality of the relationships, and I would argue that the notion of 'intellectual property' suggesting a relationship to property fails to address the nature of linguistic development. In any case, the key issue of a 'seductive mirage' most definitely is applicable to current popular usage, and over-generalization does create issues.
@onpon4: I agree with your point that freely lumping into categories serves no purpose, but disagree with the notion that it serves to cause harm. Certainly, there is a danger incurred in by unnecessary terminology- and this is fully manifested in the 'intellectual property' crisis- but inclusion of a clear definition of terms used, and careful choice of the most appropriate phrase at all times, can alleviate this. With your example of radiation control- and my only critique of its validity is that you forgot visible light- I could potentially envision it as arising in the modern context of those concerned about 'radiation pollution' or what-not.
@CalmStorm: Indeed, it appears that some corporations are more interested in keeping secrets from their customers than their rivals. It'd be entertaining to watch, if it weren't reality.
@loldier: Secondly, <img src="smiley.jpf">. Firstly, I agree with the quote you post (although the only generalities I hold absolutely true are mathematical proofs and this one).
