[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy not-ipr.pl.html po/not-ipr.pl-di...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy not-ipr.pl.html po/not-ipr.pl-di... |
|
Date: |
Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:28:28 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 13/10/11 09:28:28
Modified files:
philosophy : not-ipr.pl.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : not-ipr.pl-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=1.26
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: not-ipr.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.25
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -b -r1.25 -r1.26
--- not-ipr.pl.html 31 Jul 2013 17:30:36 -0000 1.25
+++ not-ipr.pl.html 11 Oct 2013 09:28:27 -0000 1.26
@@ -11,6 +11,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-08-12" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>„WÅasnoÅÄ intelektualna” to zwodniczy miraż</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a></p>
@@ -312,7 +319,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2013/07/31 17:30:36 $
+$Date: 2013/10/11 09:28:27 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/not-ipr.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/not-ipr.pl-diff.html
diff -N po/not-ipr.pl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/not-ipr.pl-diff.html 11 Oct 2013 09:28:28 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/not-ipr.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<title>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a
Seductive Mirage
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<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—plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The
+distorting and confusing term did not become common 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 fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual
+Property” Organization (WIPO), 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.) Wide use
dates from
+<a
href="http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=intellectual+property&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1">around
+1990</a>. (<a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png">Local image
copy</a>)
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking
+about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property
+rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal
+philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law,
+but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like
+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 introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The bias is reason enough 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
+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.
+</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 has misled them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to
+lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to
+these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common
+principle and function similarly.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Nothing could be further from the case.
+These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different
+activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</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 the term “intellectual
+property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every
+detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you
+learn some fact about copyright law, you'd be wise to assume that
+patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong!
+</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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law
+professors who teach these laws are lured 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:
+</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers
+of the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive 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 Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US
+Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That
+clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law or various
+others. The term “intellectual property” led that
+professor to make 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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined
+assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that
+amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do not,
+and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that
+copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs
+support life-saving research.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term
“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, and their
+noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic
+overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the
+differences. Putting the two laws in the “intellectual
+property” pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Thus, 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, or various other different laws, 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>And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is <a
+href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html">one proposal for
+changing the name and substance of WIPO</a>.
+</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>
+<a
href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/">
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>Richard</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Rickard</em></ins></span> Falkvinge supports
rejection of this term</a>.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2010, 2013 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/10/11 09:28:28 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy not-ipr.pl.html po/not-ipr.pl-di...,
GNUN <=