Were have I ever stated such a statement???

> please attempt to learn about the topic.

Actually I know a whole lot of the subject, thank you, do you?

> Like it our not, understand it or not, licensing
>intellectual property (art, music, software, etc)
>is different than purchasing a tangible object.

First of, lets be clear what we talk about. "Intellectual property" is a very bad thing to call or name something since and basically causes confusion. It is typically used as a collective name for copyright, patents and trademarks. However, those are all very different things, having quite different laws covering them and hence you can rarely really talk about them as all the same.

You seem on the other hand to specify it as a few specific things that all fall under copyright. So what DO you really talk about in the rest of your post? Are you talking about licensing the trademark used in movies? Are you talking about licensing a patent? Or are you perhaps talking about copyright related issues? It is not really possible to tell from what your write.

And of course, buying (or getting) a license is very different from buying something, that is the whole point I make, however, many wants and likes to call it licensing when you buy for example music or software, and then confuse the issue and confuse what applies and what one can and can't do, you are among those people.

Another thing you seem to not grasp is that copies of a work of music (or art or software) IS a tangible object, that you DO buy. Since you seem to be from the USA I will give you a link to US copyright law defining ?copies?:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html

There you go, just scroll down to ?copies?. See they are all material. You see there is a difference in ?the work? that you get copyright on and on ?copies of the work? which is what one create and sell/give/lend/whatever to others. In additional, ownership of the copyright to a work is very different and not the same as ownership to copies of the work. So when you enter a shop (or do it over the net, for example by downloading) you do actually buy a copy of the work just like any other material object you buy, there is NO difference at all. The only difference that exists is in that copyright law (if we stick to copyright and not your general ?intellectual property? which refers to the copyright not the copies usually) is that you are not allowed to make new copies of the of the one you bought, there is restrictions on the distribution of those copies and restrictions in performing the copy you bough and otherwise making it available to the public That covers most of the restrictions. There is no license stuff going on at all, no requirement even.

>Use of the phrase, "So, to me, license relates to an act of doing something,..." is meaningless
>and irrelevant.

No, it is quite relevant, since that is what a license is all about. Take copyright. A copyright holder has, according to the law an exclusive right to for example make new copies (there are exceptions when others can do copies as well that would not be infringement). SO if you want to make new copies of such a work and, lets say, sell them, you are not allowed to. Here you can get license from the copyright holder to actually do so. That is what a license is.

>The courts, (US and international) have made rulings that do not comport with your
>definition of license.

And I am sure you can support links to those rulings, especially the ?international? ones, since I have never heard of international courts dealing with such things. There really aren?t many international courts at all and they tend to deal with completely different topics, typically related to UN or war crimes and such things. I guess you mean courts in other countries than your own. Still, feel free to post any support for your opinion on the issue from your courts.

You might also want to actually go to copyright laws (feel free to start with the US one, I gave a link above, here is the one to the whole if you have trouble getting to the rest from that one:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html

Try to find ANY definition of license at all in it by the way, or why there would be some need or on what basis one could demand licenses when selling for example a book or music. The licensing part refers to the rights of the copyright holder and as I mentioned above, for example to make new copies to sell. It has nothing to do with buying and using (using as in listening, reading and such).

You might want to claim licensing as something not at all related to copyright (or patents and trademarks), but then I don?t understand your remark about it above, then you could apply the same when you buy a vacuum cleaner, do you get a license with it as well? How does that fit with your courts?

If you prefer or like to take a look at other countries copyright laws, feel free to tell me, I can direct you to a few of them, mostly the ones I have read and have good knowledge about, but I am sure I can help you out with others as well if you give me some time.

I DO assume you have actually at least read the copyright law some times, at least looked at it, and have read books, articles, cases and such about copyright related issues and such. I base this on your initial comment in your post. Somehow I am not so sure though.