[pp.int.general] WIPO DG mentions Pirate Party in speech to Blue Sky conference

[Amelia Andersdotter]

On 04.03.2011 09:43, Maxime Rouquet wrote:
> I would have suggested the exact opposite : "intellectual property" is
> about intellectual things that were abusively made property of someone
> (people, society, country...) in a wide variety of ways.
>
> So I would have proposed "intellectual monopolies".
>

"anti-markets" has been suggested in sweden. it's quite a good term also.

> On 03/04/2011 04:09 AM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
>> industrial property. it is used as industrial goods.
>>
>>> [Apologies if this discussion has already occurred elsewhere on this
>>> list.]
>>>
>>> While I understand the desire to move away from the term "intellectual
>>> property" due to the unhelpful emphasis on property, and the suggestion
>>> that works covered by it are all of some "intellectual value" (and I
>>> cringe every time it is used), having a catch-all phrase is very useful.
>>> It strikes me that in order to stop people using it, it isn't sufficient
>>> to simply criticise it, but we must replace it with something more
>>> appropriate. While "the copyright monopoly" is one suggestion, that only
>>> covers copyright, whereas we need something that covers all of this
>>> stuff (copyrights, moral rights, database rights, performers' rights,
>>> design rights, patents, trade marks, resale rights and so on).
>>>
>>> My initial thought on this was something along the lines of "Information
>>> Rights" - as what all this stuff has in common is that it grants rights
>>> to use, or prevent the use of information in some way. However, it
>>> appears this term is already being used for Data Protection issues and
>>> similar (and the cynic inside me suggests someone has already tried to
>>> trademark it somewhere). Of course, data protection laws are in many
>>> ways similar to copyrights etc. in that they control how information can
>>> be used, copied and so on (in fact I vaguely recall cases where
>>> copyright has been used to protect the distribution of databases, rather
>>> than some sort of data protection law).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on what term
>>> we *should* be using instead of IP.
>>>
>>> -Will Tovey
>>> legalpiracy.wordpress.com
>>>
>>> [There's an interesting, if technical and UK-centric discussion of the
>>> history of the term IP here, covering the age of industrial property
>>> (that made a little more sense) - worth a read for anyone interested:
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/petergroves81/Home ]
>>>
>>> On 04/03/2011 00:16, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>> Every discussion we hold shapes our habits of speaking and habits of
>>>> thinking.  The term "intellectual property" tends to mislead the people
>>>> who use it as well as support a particular side of the debate.
>>>>
>>>> However, the reason I mentioned it here was to point out something
>>>> that we ought to criticize if we talk about or respond to that speech.
>>>> I was not responding to another posting here.
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general