www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy not-ipr.ar.html not-ipr.el.html ...


From: GNUN
Subject: www/philosophy not-ipr.ar.html not-ipr.el.html ...
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:30:19 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     13/09/20 14:30:18

Modified files:
        philosophy     : not-ipr.ar.html not-ipr.el.html not-ipr.nl.html 
                         not-ipr.pt-br.html not-ipr.zh-cn.html 
Added files:
        philosophy/po  : not-ipr.ar-diff.html not-ipr.el-diff.html 
                         not-ipr.nl-diff.html not-ipr.pt-br-diff.html 
                         not-ipr.zh-cn-diff.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.ar.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=1.17
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.el.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.29&r2=1.30
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=1.26
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.ar-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.el-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.zh-cn-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: not-ipr.ar.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.ar.html,v
retrieving revision 1.16
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -b -r1.16 -r1.17
--- not-ipr.ar.html     9 Sep 2013 05:56:33 -0000       1.16
+++ not-ipr.ar.html     20 Sep 2013 14:30:14 -0000      1.17
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ar.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.ar.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.ar.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.ar-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-07-22" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ar.html" -->
 <h2>أقلت &rdquo;ملكية فكرية&ldquo;؟ إنها سراب 
كاذب</h2>
 
 <p>بقلم <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>ريتشارد إم. ستلوم
ن</a></p>
@@ -215,7 +222,7 @@
  <p><!-- timestamp start -->
 حُدّثت:
 
-$Date: 2013/09/09 05:56:33 $
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:14 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: not-ipr.el.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.el.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -b -r1.29 -r1.30
--- not-ipr.el.html     28 Feb 2013 19:11:49 -0000      1.29
+++ not-ipr.el.html     20 Sep 2013 14:30:14 -0000      1.30
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.el.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.el.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.el.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.el-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-07-22" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.el.html" -->
 <h2>Είπατε &ldquo;Πνευματική Ιδιοκτησία&rdquo;; 
Είναι μία αποπλανητική αυταπάτη</h2>
 
 <p>από τον <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a></p>
@@ -273,7 +280,7 @@
  <p><!-- timestamp start -->
 Ενημερώθηκε:
 
-$Date: 2013/02/28 19:11:49 $
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:14 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: not-ipr.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- not-ipr.nl.html     28 Feb 2013 19:11:49 -0000      1.8
+++ not-ipr.nl.html     20 Sep 2013 14:30:14 -0000      1.9
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-07-22" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
 <h2>Zei U: &ldquo;Intellectueel Eigendom&rdquo;? Dat Is Een Verleidelijke
 Luchtspiegeling</h2>
 
@@ -250,7 +257,7 @@
  <p><!-- timestamp start -->
 Bijgewerkt:
 
-$Date: 2013/02/28 19:11:49 $
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:14 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: not-ipr.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.25
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -b -r1.25 -r1.26
--- not-ipr.pt-br.html  31 Aug 2013 17:54:55 -0000      1.25
+++ not-ipr.pt-br.html  20 Sep 2013 14:30:14 -0000      1.26
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pt-br.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pt-br.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.pt-br-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-07-22" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <h2>Você Disse “Propriedade Intelectual”?  É uma Miragem Sedutora</h2>
 
 <p>por <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a></p>
@@ -250,7 +257,7 @@
  <p><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização: 
 
-$Date: 2013/08/31 17:54:55 $
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:14 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: not-ipr.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.zh-cn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- not-ipr.zh-cn.html  28 Feb 2013 19:11:49 -0000      1.20
+++ not-ipr.zh-cn.html  20 Sep 2013 14:30:15 -0000      1.21
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-cn.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.zh-cn.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.zh-cn.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.zh-cn-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-07-22" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-cn.html" -->
 
<h2>还在用&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词吗?它只是看上去很美</h2>
 
 <p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>理查德·斯托曼</a> 著</p>
@@ -156,7 +163,7 @@
  <p><!-- timestamp start -->
 最后更新
 
-$Date: 2013/02/28 19:11:49 $
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:15 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: po/not-ipr.ar-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/not-ipr.ar-diff.html
diff -N po/not-ipr.ar-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/not-ipr.ar-diff.html     20 Sep 2013 14:30:17 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+<!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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;title&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a 
Seductive Mirage
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation 
(FSF)&lt;/title&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation&lt;/title&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a Seductive 
Mirage&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard M. 
Stallman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
+trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three
+separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
+the widespread use of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is
+a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World &ldquo;Intellectual
+Property&rdquo; 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
+&lt;a 
href="http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=0&amp;smoothing=1"&gt;around
+1990&lt;/a&gt;. (&lt;a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png"&gt;Local image 
copy&lt;/a&gt;)
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suits them.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category&mdash;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
+&ldquo;exclusive rights regimes&rdquo;, but referring to restrictions
+as &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is doublethink too.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; with any other
+term.  A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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. 
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;a price
+that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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!
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;legislative colonization&rdquo;, that
+gets to the heart of the matter.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know.  For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+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&hellip;they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that
+professor to make false generalization.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; also leads to simplistic
+thinking.  It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have&mdash;that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties&mdash;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 &ldquo;economistic&rdquo; approach to all
+these issues.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term 
&ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible.  These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law&mdash;precisely what the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Thus, any opinions about &ldquo;the issue of intellectual
+property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is &lt;a
+href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html"&gt;one proposal for
+changing the name and substance of WIPO&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;hr /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;a 
href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"&gt;
+Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;Please</em></ins></span> send <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</em></ins></span>
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;br /&gt;
+Please send broken</strong></del></span>  <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections 
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright</em></ins></span> &copy; 2004, 2006, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2010</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2010, 2013</em></ins></span> Richard M. <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+&lt;br /&gt;
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>License&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:17 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: po/not-ipr.el-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/not-ipr.el-diff.html
diff -N po/not-ipr.el-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/not-ipr.el-diff.html     20 Sep 2013 14:30:18 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+<!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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;title&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a 
Seductive Mirage
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation 
(FSF)&lt;/title&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation&lt;/title&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a Seductive 
Mirage&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard M. 
Stallman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
+trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three
+separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
+the widespread use of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is
+a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World &ldquo;Intellectual
+Property&rdquo; 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
+&lt;a 
href="http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=0&amp;smoothing=1"&gt;around
+1990&lt;/a&gt;. (&lt;a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png"&gt;Local image 
copy&lt;/a&gt;)
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suits them.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category&mdash;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
+&ldquo;exclusive rights regimes&rdquo;, but referring to restrictions
+as &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is doublethink too.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; with any other
+term.  A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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. 
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;a price
+that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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!
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;legislative colonization&rdquo;, that
+gets to the heart of the matter.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know.  For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+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&hellip;they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that
+professor to make false generalization.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; also leads to simplistic
+thinking.  It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have&mdash;that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties&mdash;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 &ldquo;economistic&rdquo; approach to all
+these issues.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term 
&ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible.  These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law&mdash;precisely what the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Thus, any opinions about &ldquo;the issue of intellectual
+property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is &lt;a
+href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html"&gt;one proposal for
+changing the name and substance of WIPO&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;hr /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;a 
href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"&gt;
+Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;Please</em></ins></span> send <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</em></ins></span>
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;br /&gt;
+Please send broken</strong></del></span>  <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections 
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright</em></ins></span> &copy; 2004, 2006, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2010</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2010, 2013</em></ins></span> Richard M. <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+&lt;br /&gt;
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>License&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:18 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: po/not-ipr.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/not-ipr.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/not-ipr.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/not-ipr.nl-diff.html     20 Sep 2013 14:30:18 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+<!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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;title&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a 
Seductive Mirage
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation 
(FSF)&lt;/title&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation&lt;/title&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a Seductive 
Mirage&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard M. 
Stallman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
+trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three
+separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
+the widespread use of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is
+a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World &ldquo;Intellectual
+Property&rdquo; 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
+&lt;a 
href="http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=0&amp;smoothing=1"&gt;around
+1990&lt;/a&gt;. (&lt;a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png"&gt;Local image 
copy&lt;/a&gt;)
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suits them.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category&mdash;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
+&ldquo;exclusive rights regimes&rdquo;, but referring to restrictions
+as &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is doublethink too.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; with any other
+term.  A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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. 
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;a price
+that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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!
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;legislative colonization&rdquo;, that
+gets to the heart of the matter.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know.  For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+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&hellip;they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that
+professor to make false generalization.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; also leads to simplistic
+thinking.  It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have&mdash;that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties&mdash;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 &ldquo;economistic&rdquo; approach to all
+these issues.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term 
&ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible.  These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law&mdash;precisely what the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Thus, any opinions about &ldquo;the issue of intellectual
+property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is &lt;a
+href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html"&gt;one proposal for
+changing the name and substance of WIPO&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;hr /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;a 
href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"&gt;
+Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;Please</em></ins></span> send <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</em></ins></span>
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;br /&gt;
+Please send broken</strong></del></span>  <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections 
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright</em></ins></span> &copy; 2004, 2006, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2010</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2010, 2013</em></ins></span> Richard M. <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+&lt;br /&gt;
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>License&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:18 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: po/not-ipr.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/not-ipr.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/not-ipr.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/not-ipr.pt-br-diff.html  20 Sep 2013 14:30:18 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+<!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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;title&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a 
Seductive Mirage
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation 
(FSF)&lt;/title&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation&lt;/title&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a Seductive 
Mirage&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard M. 
Stallman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
+trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three
+separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
+the widespread use of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is
+a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World &ldquo;Intellectual
+Property&rdquo; 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
+&lt;a 
href="http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=0&amp;smoothing=1"&gt;around
+1990&lt;/a&gt;. (&lt;a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png"&gt;Local image 
copy&lt;/a&gt;)
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suits them.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category&mdash;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
+&ldquo;exclusive rights regimes&rdquo;, but referring to restrictions
+as &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is doublethink too.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; with any other
+term.  A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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. 
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;a price
+that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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!
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;legislative colonization&rdquo;, that
+gets to the heart of the matter.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know.  For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+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&hellip;they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that
+professor to make false generalization.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; also leads to simplistic
+thinking.  It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have&mdash;that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties&mdash;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 &ldquo;economistic&rdquo; approach to all
+these issues.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term 
&ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible.  These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law&mdash;precisely what the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Thus, any opinions about &ldquo;the issue of intellectual
+property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is &lt;a
+href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html"&gt;one proposal for
+changing the name and substance of WIPO&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;hr /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;a 
href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"&gt;
+Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;Please</em></ins></span> send <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</em></ins></span>
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;br /&gt;
+Please send broken</strong></del></span>  <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections 
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright</em></ins></span> &copy; 2004, 2006, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2010</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2010, 2013</em></ins></span> Richard M. <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+&lt;br /&gt;
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>License&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:18 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: po/not-ipr.zh-cn-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/not-ipr.zh-cn-diff.html
diff -N po/not-ipr.zh-cn-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/not-ipr.zh-cn-diff.html  20 Sep 2013 14:30:18 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+<!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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;title&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a 
Seductive Mirage
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation 
(FSF)&lt;/title&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation&lt;/title&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;?  It's a Seductive 
Mirage&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard M. 
Stallman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
+trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three
+separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
+the widespread use of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is
+a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World &ldquo;Intellectual
+Property&rdquo; 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
+&lt;a 
href="http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=0&amp;smoothing=1"&gt;around
+1990&lt;/a&gt;. (&lt;a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png"&gt;Local image 
copy&lt;/a&gt;)
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suits them.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category&mdash;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
+&ldquo;exclusive rights regimes&rdquo;, but referring to restrictions
+as &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is doublethink too.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; with any other
+term.  A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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. 
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;a price
+that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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!
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;legislative colonization&rdquo;, that
+gets to the heart of the matter.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know.  For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+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&hellip;they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that
+professor to make false generalization.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; also leads to simplistic
+thinking.  It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have&mdash;that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties&mdash;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 &ldquo;economistic&rdquo; approach to all
+these issues.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term 
&ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible.  These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law&mdash;precisely what the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Thus, any opinions about &ldquo;the issue of intellectual
+property&rdquo; 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.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is &lt;a
+href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html"&gt;one proposal for
+changing the name and substance of WIPO&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;hr /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;a 
href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"&gt;
+Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;Please</em></ins></span> send <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</em></ins></span>
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;br /&gt;
+Please send broken</strong></del></span>  <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections 
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;em&gt;address@hidden&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright</em></ins></span> &copy; 2004, 2006, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2010</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2010, 2013</em></ins></span> Richard M. <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+&lt;br /&gt;
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>License&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2013/09/20 14:30:18 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]