[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy not-ipr.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy not-ipr.html |
|
Date: |
Thu, 31 May 2007 11:51:09 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 07/05/31 11:51:09
Modified files:
philosophy : not-ipr.html
Log message:
* Use ldquo/rdquo/mdash and put the quote in <blockquote>.
* Fixed translations list.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
Patches:
Index: not-ipr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- not-ipr.html 24 Apr 2007 23:31:46 -0000 1.12
+++ not-ipr.html 31 May 2007 11:51:04 -0000 1.13
@@ -1,26 +1,27 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<title>GNU Project - Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive
Mirage</title>
+<title>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive
Mirage - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage</h2>
+<h2>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive
Mirage</h2>
<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a></p>
<p>
-It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks -
-three separate and different entities involving three separate and
-different sets of laws -- into one pot and call it "intellectual
-property". The distorting and confusing term did not arise by
-accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The
-clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks
+— three separate and different entities involving three separate
+and different sets of laws — into one pot and call it
+“intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term
+did not arise by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion
+promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the
+term entirely.
</p>
<p>
According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
-the widespread use of the term "intellectual property" is a fad that
-followed the 1967 founding of the World "Intellectual Property"
-Organization, and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is
-formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of
-the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.)
+the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is
+a fad that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual
+Property” Organization, and only became really common in recent
+years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the
+interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.)
</p>
<p>
@@ -32,32 +33,32 @@
physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to
change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the
companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the
-bias of "intellectual property" suits them.
+bias of “intellectual property” suits them.
</p>
<p>
The bias is enough reason to reject the term, and people have often
-asked me to propose some other name for the overall category -- or
-have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category —
+or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions
include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for
Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of
-"exclusive rights regimes", but referring to restrictions as "rights"
-is doublethink too.
+“exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions
+as “rights” is doublethink too.
</p>
<p>
Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
-mistake to replace "intellectual property" with any other term. A
-different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
-overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as "intellectual
-property"--it is a mirage. The only reason people think it makes
-sense as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term gives
-that impression.
+mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other
+term. A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as
+“intellectual property”—it is a mirage. The only
+reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that
+widespread use of the term gives that impression.
</p>
<p>
-The term "intellectual property" is at best a catch-all to lump
-together disparate laws. Non-lawyers who hear one term applied to
+The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to
+lump together disparate laws. Non-lawyers who hear one term applied to
these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common
principle, and function similarly.
</p>
@@ -72,16 +73,16 @@
Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers
the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to
promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the
-one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it--a price that
-may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price
+that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
</p>
<p>
Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular
way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are
-buying. Legislators under the influence of "intellectual property",
-however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for
-advertising.
+buying. Legislators under the influence of “intellectual
+property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
</p>
<p>
@@ -92,47 +93,50 @@
</p>
<p>
-People often say "intellectual property" when they really mean some
-larger or smaller category. For instance, rich countries often impose
-unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them. Some of
-these laws are "intellectual property" laws, and others are not;
-nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because
-it has become familiar to them. By using it, they misrepresent the
-nature of the issue. It would be better to use an accurate term, such
-as "legislative colonization", that gets to the heart of the matter.
+People often say “intellectual property” when they really
+mean some larger or smaller category. For instance, rich countries
+often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of
+them. Some of these laws are “intellectual property” laws,
+and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab
+for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it,
+they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use
+an accurate term, such as “legislative colonization”, that
+gets to the heart of the matter.
</p>
<p>
Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law
professors who teach these laws are lured by, and distracted by, the
-seductiveness of the term "intellectual property", and make general
-statements that conflict with facts they know. For example, one
-professor wrote in 2006:
+seductiveness of the term “intellectual property”, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know. For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
</p>
-<p>
-"Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers of the
-US constitution had a principled, pro-competitive attitude to intellectual
-property. They knew rights might be necessary, but...they tied congress's
-hands, restricting its power in multiple ways".
-</p>
+<blockquote><p>
+Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers
+of the US constitution had a principled, pro-competitive attitude to
+intellectual property. They knew rights might be necessary,
+but…they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+</p></blockquote>
<p>
That statement refers to the article 1 section 8, clause 8 in the US
Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That
clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law. The term
-"intellectual property" led that professor into a false
+“intellectual property” led that professor into a false
generalization.
</p>
<p>
-The term "intellectual property" also leads to simplistic thinking. It
-leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these
-disparate laws have--that they create artificial privileges for
-certain parties--and to disregard the details which form their
-substance: the specific restrictions each law places on the public,
-and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus on the form
-encourages an "economistic" approach to all these issues.
+The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic
+thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have—that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties—and to disregard the details
+which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places
+on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus
+on the form encourages an “economistic” approach to all
+these issues.
</p>
<p>
@@ -145,40 +149,43 @@
</p>
<p>
-Another problem is that, at the broad scale of "intellectual property",
-the specific issues raised by the various laws become nearly invisible.
-These issues arise from the specifics of each law--precisely what the
-term "intellectual property" encourages people to ignore. For
-instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing
-should be allowed. Patent law has nothing to do with this.
-Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries
-should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply
-to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale of “intellectual
+property”, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible. These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law—precisely what the term “intellectual property”
+encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to
+copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed. Patent law
+has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether
+poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell
+them cheaply to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do with such
+matters.
</p>
<p>
Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, but they are not
similar, and anyone looking at them in the shallow economic
perspectives of overgeneralization cannot grasp the differences. If
-you put both laws in the general "intellectual property" pot, you will
-find that obstructs your ability to think clearly about each one.
+you put both laws in the general “intellectual property”
+pot, you will find that obstructs your ability to think clearly about
+each one.
</p>
<p>
-As a result, any opinions about "the issue of intellectual property"
-and any generalizations about this supposed category are almost surely
-foolish. If you think all those laws are one issue, you will tend to
-choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping overgeneralizations,
-none of which is any good.
+As a result, any opinions about “the issue of intellectual
+property” and any generalizations about this supposed category
+are almost surely foolish. If you think all those laws are one issue,
+you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping
+overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.
</p>
<p>
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or
-copyrights, or trademarks, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping
-them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step is to
-reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term
-"intellectual property" suggests. Consider each of these issues separately,
-in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering them well.
+copyrights, or trademarks, the first step is to forget the idea of
+lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second
+step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the
+term “intellectual property” suggests. Consider each of
+these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of
+considering them well.
</p>
<p>
@@ -193,16 +200,16 @@
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>other ways to
contact</a>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
<p>
Please see the
-<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
translations of this article.
</p>
@@ -218,13 +225,13 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/04/24 23:31:46 $ $Author: jocke $
+$Date: 2007/05/31 11:51:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
<div id="translations">
-<h4>Translations of this page:</h4>
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
@@ -242,18 +249,24 @@
<!-- non-w3c entities. xhtml should be XML compliant -->
<ul class="translations-list">
-<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.af.html">Afrikaans</a></li> <!-- Afrikaans
-->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.de.html">Deutsch</a></li> <!-- German -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">English</a></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.fr.html">Français</a></li> <!--
French -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/not-ipr.el.html">Ελληνικά</a></li>
<!-- Greek -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.it.html">Italiano</a></li> <!--
Italian -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.nl.html">Nederlands</a></li> <!--
Dutch -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.pl.html">Polski</a></li> <!--
Polish -->
+<!-- Afrikaans -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.af.html">Afrikaans</a> [af]</li>
+<!-- German -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
+<!-- Greek -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/not-ipr.el.html">Ελληνικά</a> [el]</li>
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
+<!-- Dutch -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.nl.html">Nederlands</a> [nl]</li>
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.pl.html">Polski</a> [pl]</li>
</ul>
</div>
-
</div>
-
</body>
</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy not-ipr.html,
Yavor Doganov <=