[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy intellect-property.html
|
From: |
Ramprasad B |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy intellect-property.html |
|
Date: |
Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:40:05 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Ramprasad B <ramprasadb> 06/07/25 08:40:05
Added files:
philosophy : intellect-property.html
Log message:
renamed
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/intellect-property.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: intellect-property.html
===================================================================
RCS file: intellect-property.html
diff -N intellect-property.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ intellect-property.html 25 Jul 2006 08:40:02 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en">
+
+<head>
+<title>Don't Let 'Intellectual Property' Twist Your Ethos</title>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content='text/html; charset=utf-8' />
+<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/gnu.css" />
+<link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden"; />
+</head>
+
+<!-- This document is in XML, and xhtml 1.0 -->
+<!-- Please make sure to properly nest your tags -->
+<!-- and ensure that your final document validates -->
+<!-- consistent with W3C xhtml 1.0 and CSS standards -->
+<!-- See validator.w3.org -->
+
+<body>
+
+<h3>Don't Let 'Intellectual Property' Twist Your Ethos</h3>
+
+<p>
+<a href="/graphics/philosophicalgnu.html"><img
src="/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg"
+ alt=" [image of a Philosophical Gnu] "
+ width="160" height="200" /></a>
+</p>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a>
+<br />
+June 09, 2006
+</p>
+
+<!--<p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>-->
+
+<p>
+<hr />
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ Most free software licenses are based on copyright law, and for good reason:
+ Copyright law is much more uniform among countries than contract law, which
+ is the other possible choice.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ There's another reason not to use contract law: It would require every
+ distributor to get a user's formal assent to the contract before providing a
+ copy. To hand someone a CD without getting his signature first would be
+ forbidden. What a pain in the neck!
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ It's true that in countries like China, where copyright law is generally not
+ enforced, we may also have trouble enforcing free software license
agreements,
+ as Heather Meeker suggests in her recent LinuxInsider column,
+ <a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50421.html";>
+ “Only in America? Copyright Law Key to Global Free Software
Model”
+ </a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ However, this is not a reason to press for more copyright enforcement in
+ China. Although we would use it to protect people's freedom, we have to
+ recognize that mostly it would be used by the likes of Microsoft, Disney
+ and Sony to take it away.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ Ironically, we might have more success enforcing copyright in China than
+ Microsoft, Disney and Sony -- because what we would want to do is easier.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ Disney wishes to stamp out semi-underground organizations that sell exact
+ copies. With free software, regardless of the type of license, that kind of
+ copying is legal. What we want to prevent, when the free software license is
+ the GNU <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html";>GPL</a>, is the
release
+ of proprietary software products based on our code. That kind of abuse is at
+ its worst when carried out by large, well-known companies -- and they are
+ easier targets for enforcement. So GPL enforcement in China is not a lost
+ cause, though it won't be easy.
+</p>
+
+<h4> No Chinese Laundry </h4>
+
+<p>
+ Nonetheless, Meeker's claim that this leads to a global problem is simply
+ absurd. You can't “launder” material copyrighted in the U.S.
+ by moving it through China, as she ought to know.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ If someone violates the GNU GPL by distributing a non-free modified version
+ of GCC in the U.S., it won't make any difference if it was obtained or
+ modified in China. U.S. copyright law will be enforced just the same.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ Although this error might seem to be the central point of Meeker's article,
+ it is not. The real central point of the article is the perspective embodied
+ in her use of the term “intellectual property”. She uses this
term
+ pervasively as though it refers to something coherent -- something it makes
+ sense to talk about and think about. If you believe that, you have accepted
the
+ article's hidden assumption.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Loose Language</h4>
+
+<p>
+ Sometimes Meeker switches between “intellectual property” and
+ “copyright” as if they were two names for the same thing.
+ Sometimes she switches between “intellectual property” and
patents
+ as if they were two names for the same thing. Having studied those two laws,
+ Meeker knows they are vastly different; all they have in common is a rough
+ sketch of their form.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ Other “intellectual property” laws don't even share that much
with
+ them. The implication that you can treat them all as the same thing is
+ fundamentally misleading.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ Along with the term “intellectual property” goes a false
+ understanding of what these laws are for. Meeker speaks of an
+ “ethos” of “intellectual property” that exists in
the
+ U.S. because “intellectual property is in the Constitution.”
+ That's the mother of all mistakes.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ What is really in the U.S. Constitution? It doesn't mention
+ “intellectual property”, and it says nothing at all about most
of
+ the laws that term covers. Only two of them -- copyright law and patent law
--
+ are treated there.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ What does the Constitution say about them? What is its ethos? It is nothing
+ like the “intellectual property ethos” that Meeker imagines.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Failure to Execute</h4>
+
+<p>
+ What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law are
optional.
+ They need not exist. It says that if they do exist, their purpose is to
+ provide a public benefit -- to promote progress by providing artificial
+ incentives.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they are artificial
+ privileges that we might, or might not, want to hand out to encourage people
+ to do what we find useful.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress -- which has to carry it out on our
+ behalf -- takes its orders from Hollywood and Microsoft instead of from us.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ If you appreciate the U.S. Constitution's wisdom, don't let
+ “intellectual property” into your ethos; don't let the
+ “intellectual property” meme infect your mind.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+ Practically speaking, copyright and patent and trademark law have only one
+ thing in common: Each is legitimate only as far as it serves the public
+ interest. Your interest in your freedom is a part of the public interest
+ that must be served.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+<hr />
+</p>
+
+<br />
+
+<div class="copyright">
+<p>
+Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 2006 Richard M. Stallman
+<br />
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2006/07/25 08:40:02 $ $Author: ramprasadb $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy intellect-property.html,
Ramprasad B <=