[pp.int.general] The IIPA Reports

[Radosław Nadstawny]

Dnia 2010-02-28, o godz. 10:03:14
Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org> napisał(a):

> It is ironic how that Guardian article gave the enemy so much
> inadvertent support by treating the term "intellectual property" as if
> it meant something.
> 
> With these propaganda terms, the enemy creates a multi-layered
> structure.  If you criticize only the top layer while using those
> propaganda terms to state what you're criticizing, you actually
> support the enemy at the next layer down.
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

It's not that bad. The term "intellectual property" is used almost only
in quotations. The only line it's used directly is:
> In fact, IP enforcement is often even more strict in the open source
> community, and those who infringe licenses or fail to give appropriate
> credit are often pilloried.

As for the term itself, I think it has as much meaning as the law gives
it. The problem is that the law gives it a meaning rather far from what
the words suggest.

If I were to guess the meaning from wording, I'd think that protection
of "intellectual property" would involve ensuring that noone is forced
to give away any part of his knowledge (or more generally, thoughts).
What the term means now would be much better described as "information
monopoly", since it makes the possession of certain information illegal
unless you're the "owner", i.e. holder of the monopoly on that piece
of information, or have a monopolist's licence. I know that "monopoly"
doesn't sound as good and righteous as "property", but since the latter
describes the idea much better, why don't we call things by name? If
this idea is really necessary, so be it, but at least let's be honest
and not pretend that everything is perfect about it.