[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Reinier Bakels]

> Viewing or treating "intellectual property" as property in any sense is
> basically hogwash. That was a rhetorical trick used by the printing
> lobby in 1708 to have the copyright monopoly re-enacted by British
> Parliament after its cessation in 1695. Casting it as property would
> make the monopoly be written into the stronger common law, rather than
> statute law.
I could not agree more. Well, actually I as not aware of this explanation - 
I got told that one tried in the 19th century to abuse the property concept 
that just was firmly established during the French revolution. But the 
"extrapolation" into *intellectual* property has no ground whatsoerver.
>
> Copyright is a government-sanctioned private monopoly on duplication and
> public performance of certain creative works. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Let's take that again: Copyright is a monopoly.
>
> Monopolies can be created or abolished at any time by any government,
> and copyrights and patents are the only two surviving monopolies since
> feudal times, when monopolies were generally considered a good idea.
>
No. Actually the analogy helps to clarify my point. Assume someone gets a 
licence from the city of Berlin (where I am currently) to operate a bar in 
street X house number Y for the coming 10 years. Then this gentlemen starts 
making investments - he has the right for this address, so he believes he 
can be sure the investment is protected. Imagine that the city council after 
two years says: we have made up our mind, and we discontinue your licence. 
Not because we have any complaints, but because we simply decided to do so. 
THAT is not allowed, at least not without due compensation.

Imagine someone has written something - so by law he is the author. He sells 
the copyright to a  publisher, who is prepared to pay a large sum of money 
because he expects lots of sales of the book. Then Rick Falckvinge becomes 
prime minister and says: five years is enough. The author will be pleased: 
he has recveived the money already, and conceivavbly he already spent all 
the money. Anyway, the transaction was legal. So the publisher is faced with 
an investment that becomes worthless overnight.

This is the kind of situation that the protection of property (NOT 
"intellectual property") is supposed to solve. I don't know whether you 
understand any Dutch or german, but they talk about "vermogensrechten" or 
"Vermögensrechte". Words that do not remind of intellectual property.

Well, this may all be slightly different in Anglo-Saxon law, but the basic 
principle remains MUST be the same, because the essence is simply the 
protection of trade.

Please understand: I say all this in order to get the focus on actions that 
ARE feasible - rather than actions that are unthinkable in the present legal 
order - which we do not want to destroy, as Richard Stallman agrees.

reinier