confused

[Neil Brown]

Quoting Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <luke.leighton at googlemail.com>:


>  hi neil,
>
>  you've been kind enough to correct me on a number of points wrt the
> GPL, so i thought i would return the favour (i hope!) by referring you
> to the above essay, which indicates how insidious the phrase
> "intellectual property" really is.

Thanks, Luke - that is appreciated.

I've read Stallman's essay on this a number of times, since his views  
interest me, and, I do see (and agree with) his point- when the term  
"intellectual property" is used as a way of confusing discreet rights,  
to strengthen someone's position inappropriately, then, I consider the  
usage problematic - although perhaps not to the degree of  
consideration all forms of intellectual property to be about "creating  
slaves out of intelligent people".

That being said, I do think that there is a role for the use of a term  
describing a number of different areas, provided it is used as such -  
there is a vast different between an ant and an anteater, and yet both  
are described as animals - the inclusion in a class does not detract  
from the individualities of each member.

An interesting debate, though - and a critical one if people do not  
appreciate the nature of the individual rights which comprise  
"intellectual property". If it's of particular interest, I'd recommend  
Bill Patry's book "Moral Panics and the Copyright wars", which offers  
an accessible discussion about the distinctions between "intellectual  
property" as a form of social contract, and "absolute" property -  
although David Bollier's excellent "Public Assets, Private Profits"  
discusses the concept that any form of property is simply a societal  
agreement.



-- 



Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk