On 5/19/14, Carl Fink <c...@finknetwork.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:50:44PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >> On 5/19/14, Lee Winter <lee.j.i.win...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real >> > and >> > worth protecting. >> >> RMS never said intellectual creations are not real. >> >> RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting. >> >> PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to this >> point. > > RMs said to me, personally, that "intellectual property" does not exist > except legally and should not exist legally. Cite: personal communication.
Thank you. That's good, anecdotal as it is. Here are some more official FSF materials: The short version: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty Which includes the following para: "The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property." This is an unpacking of what I was referring to in an earlier email as "conflation" of terms. The next para is: "When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be." And the final para (I have not quoted them all) says "The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed. [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html]"; - I find that link interesting indeed. The long version is here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml Quoting its first paragraph: "It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. " And these: "Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other term. A different name will not address the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as “intellectual property”—it is a mirage. The only reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term has misled them. " "People often say “intellectual property” when they really mean some larger or smaller category. For instance, rich countries often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them. Some of these laws are “intellectual property” laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use an accurate term, such as “legislative colonization”, that gets to the heart of the matter. " "Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do not, and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs support life-saving research. " I recommend reading the whole statement though... Cheers, Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsqcjr-xfc3qtvjd+4szy4airb+fy2mmdbempjragip...@mail.gmail.com
