John Fields wrote:

Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right
to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit,
under the pretense that by so doing you enrich our lives.

Your second mistake it putting words in my mouth. How do you know my
views?
---
You're mistaken, again.
I haven't put words in your mouth, I've made clear what kind of
person I think you are.

Which is exactly my point - you are arguing against your unfounded
assumptions of my views, rather than against the substance of what i've
actually said.

In fact you don't seem to have challenged the substance at all yet.

I haven't actually expressed any - I merely pointed out counterexamples
to your argument.

---
That's not true. Your:

"Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
considered ownable "intellectual property" "

sounds to me like your view, at that particular point in time, was
that I had made an ignorant assumption.

Yes, because you ignored obvious counterexamples to your suggestion
that certain types of intellectual property would not exist without
protection; the counterexamples being that they were established fields
of practice before they were protectable.