Intellectual property is accompanied by natural rights and unnatural privileges.

Different things happen in different jurisdictions (WIPO notwithstanding).

• Some rights are protected, some aren’t.
• Some privileges are granted, some aren’t.

Examples of rights: life, privacy, truth, liberty.
Examples of privileges (suspension of others’ rights): copyright, patent.

I’m an IP naturalist. How about you?

• IP maximalists want as many rights and privileges as they can get, and ever more draconian enforcement.
• IP conservatives think everything’s working just fine, but for a few tweaks here and there, and the need for better law schools.
• IP reformists sense problems, but aren’t sure what they are or how to fix them.
• IP nostalgists think things have gone too far, and want to remove the last few decades of revisions to IP law from the statute books.
• IP fundamentalists worship Thomas Jefferson and are waiting for his resurrection.
• IP constitutionalists believe all solutions lie in a better understanding of the intentions of the founding fathers.
• IP nihilists believe that it’s all moot and don’t care what the law says, that the diffusion of information is as amenable to control as the tide to Canute. All legislation is either in conflict with reality, ineffective, or redundant.
• IP pragmatists are simply using licences to achieve their preferred ideology.
• IP naturalists argue from an ethical perspective that all rights should be protected and all privileges abolished.
• IP communists find privileges abhorrent, and even consider rights secondary in favour of a communitarian social contract to oblige the sharing of art and knowledge, free of commercial consideration (although tolerating any commerce that survives).
• IP anarchists do what the heck they want and will use technology to subvert or bypass undesirable constraints for the benefit of themselves and others.
• IP extremists consider violation of IP rights and privileges equivalent to terrorism and want violators to be treated as terrorists.
• IP authorialists believe all problems result from the author’s surrender of their privileges to their publishers, that if all privileges were returned to the authors and made inalienable as if rights, that no author could then authorise their sociopathic abuse.

Any more?