[pp.int.general] ACTA declaration

[Boris Turovskiy]

Hi Richard,
>      Speaking of which: the Executive Office of the President of the United
>      States just published the "Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property
>      Enforcement
>
> This plan shows how the term "intellectual property" serves the cause
> of repression.  It is not a minor detail -- the supposition in that
> expression is the base of the enemy's logic.
>    
After some more deliberation I actually think that you, in your staunch 
opposition to saying "intellectual property", have bought the copyright 
lobby's supposition to a greater extent than those who don't see a 
problem with the term.
Let me explain.

When our opponents speak about "intellectual property" in order to, for 
example, make out file-sharers as thieves, they appeal to a very 
simplistic, intuitive notion that people have of "property" in general - 
most often that is supported by specific examples ("what would a pirate 
say if I stole their car?"). But that's the exact point that is false, 
as there is much more to "property" than this simple situation. Take the 
idea of "property on land", which has provided many heated discussions 
and led to several revolutions in the 19th and 20th centuries, and while 
we're at it, the idea of "property on natural resources". Take "property 
on human beings" - commonly known as "slavery" - which is an absolute 
no-go in the modern civilized world but must have appeared to be 
absolutely "natural" in those societies where it existed (for thousands 
of years). Take the restrictions placed by most legal systems on 
property rights on behalf of society. And I won't even start to delve 
into the notions of property underlying the (current) financial system 
which are both much more complex and much less intuitive than the simple 
idea of "that's my car".

All in all, there isn't anything simple and natural in the idea of 
"property" - rather, it has been constructed in the course of history to 
achieve specific aims (or to follow specific philosophical approaches), 
this idea has undergone a variety of changes and is even now dependent 
on the legal system.
So, there is no intrinsic problem that we should single out certain 
parts of the legal system and say that they concern something called 
"intellectual property" - as long as it is understood that nothing can 
be implied from this as to what specific rules should govern this newly 
constructed entity.
 From the PR point of view it is also much more constructive to go that 
way than to say "there is no intellectual property so we have nothing to 
discuss" over and over again;)

Best regards,
Boris