neil at neilzone.co.uk
Thu May 20 14:31:59 CEST 2010
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
neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
More information about the legal