[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Reinier Bakels]

>    "intellectual property" versus "immaterial rights", he is thinking
>    about "sharing" versus "theft".
>
> There is no need to argue about which one is more harmful.
> Since both of them are harmful, we should reject them both.
>
> I won't say "intellectual property" is more harmful, but the WAY
> it does harm is more subtle and devious.

I am afraid that the reality is that the term "intellectual property" is so 
widely used that attempts to avoid it make one's language very cumbersome 
and artificial. Most universities, and law firms have an "intellectual 
property" department.

A nice exception is perhaps the "Institute of Information Law" of Amsterdam 
university (http://www.ivir.nl). They indeed combine different aspects of 
"information law": not just copyright law and (oops!) authors law, but also 
freedom of speech and telecommunications law (look at the recent EU telecom 
package and see how much it is related!).

Incidentally, thy have a job opening for a (full) professor, 
http://www.ivir.nl/news/Vacancy_Prof_Information_Law_2009.pdf something for 
you, Richard? You easily comply with the requirement of being an 
internationally recognised leader in the field, and iirc you have a number 
of honorary doctorates (wasn't one of them by professor Tanenbaum in 
Amsterdam? But that is the other university in Amsterdam).

reinier
a different