www/philosophy not-ipr.xhtml

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       06/07/23 16:44:26

Modified files:
        philosophy     : not-ipr.xhtml 

Log message:
        Talk about the simplistic economic model, and give example
        of a law professor's mistake.  Other cleanups.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8

Patches:
Index: not-ipr.xhtml
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- not-ipr.xhtml       24 Mar 2006 23:06:58 -0000      1.7
+++ not-ipr.xhtml       23 Jul 2006 16:44:24 -0000      1.8
@@ -73,17 +73,17 @@
 other name for the category--or proposed alternatives themselves.
 Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs,
 for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies.  Some speak of
-"exclusive rights regimes", but this means referring to restrictions
-as rights, which is doublethink too.
+"exclusive rights regimes", but referring to restrictions as "rights"
+is doublethink too.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-But it is a mistake to replace "intellectual property" with any other
-term.  A different name could eliminate the bias, but won't address
-the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization.  There is no such
-unified thing as "intellectual property".  It is a mirage, which
-appears to have a coherent existence only because the term suggests it
-does.
+Some of these replacements are an incremental improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace "intellectual property" with any other term.  A
+different name could eliminate the bias, but won't address the term's
+deeper problem: overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as
+"intellectual property".  It is a mirage, which appears to have a
+coherent existence only because the term suggests it does.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -116,61 +116,83 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Laymen are not alone in getting confused by this term.  I regularly
-find that experts on patent law, copyright law, and trademark law,
-even law professors who teach these subjects, have been lured by the
-seductiveness of the term "intellectual property" into general
-statements that conflict with the facts they know.  The term distracts
-them from using their own knowledge.
+Laymen are not alone in getting confused by this term.  Even law
+professors who teach these laws are lured by the seductiveness of the
+term "intellectual property" into general statements that conflict
+with the facts they know.  The term distracts them from using their
+own knowledge.  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>
+
+<p>
+That statement refers to the article in the US Constitution which
+authorizes copyright law and patent law, but that article has nothing
+to do with trademark law.  The term "intellectual property" led that
+professor into a false generalization.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 People often say "intellectual property" when they really mean some
-other category, larger or smaller than "intellectual property".  For
-instance, rich countries impose laws on poor countries to squeeze
-money out of them.  These laws often fit the category of "intellectual
-property"--so people who question the fairness of these laws often use
-that label, even though it does not really fit.  That can lead to
-incorrect statements and unclear thinking.  For this subject I
-recommend using a term such as "legislative colonization" that focuses
-on the central aspect of the subject, rather than the term
-"intellectual property".  For other subjects, the term that describes
-the subject would be different.
+larger or smaller category.  For instance, rich countries often impose
+unjustr laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them.  Some of
+these are "intellectual property" laws, but not all; nonetheless,
+people often grab that label because it has become familiar to them,
+and misrepresent the nature of the issue.  It would be better to use a
+term such as "legislative colonization" which gets to the heart of the
+matter and avoids misrepresenting its extent.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 The term "intellectual property" also leads to simplistic thinking.
 It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form of these
-disparate laws, which is that they create special powers that can be
-bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the specific restrictions
+disparate laws, which is that they create artificial privileges for
+certain parties, and ignore their substance--the specific restrictions
 each of them places on the public, and the consequences that result.
+This encourages an "economistic" approach to all these issues, and
+economics, as it often does, operates as a vehicule for unexamined
+values (such as, that amount of production matters, while freedom and
+way of life do not), and factual assumptions that are only slightly
+true (such as, that copyright on music supports musicians, or that
+patents on drugs support life-saving research).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+To one who views at such a broad scale, the specific public policy
+issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by
+patent law, or any of the other laws, are 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.  But patent law
+raises the issue of 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 that.  Neither of these issues is
+just an economic issue, but they are not similar, so anyone looking at
+them in terms of economic overgeneralization will get them wrong.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-At such a broad scale, people can't even see the specific public
-policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised
-by patent law, or any of the others.  These issues arise from the
-specifics, 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.  But patent law raises the issue of 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 that.
-Neither of these issues is just an economic issue, and anyone looking
-at them in the shallow economic perspectives of overgeneralization
-can't grasp them.  Thus, any opinion about "the issue of intellectual
-property" is almost surely foolish.  If you think it is one issue, you
-will tend to consider only opinions that treat all these laws the
-same.  Whichever one you pick, it won't make any sense.
+As a result, any opinion about "the issue of intellectual property" is
+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 even learn what these laws say, the
-first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat
-them as separate topics.  If you want to write articles that inform
-the public and encourage clear thinking, treat each of these laws
-separately; don't suggest generalizing about them.
+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 economics
+that 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>
@@ -250,7 +272,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2006/03/24 23:06:58 $ $Author: johnsu01 $
+$Date: 2006/07/23 16:44:24 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>