[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy not-ipr.it.html not-ipr.uk.html ...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy not-ipr.it.html not-ipr.uk.html ... |
|
Date: |
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:58:04 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 18/11/12 16:58:04
Modified files:
philosophy : not-ipr.it.html not-ipr.uk.html
philosophy/po : not-ipr.uk-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : not-ipr.it-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.41&r2=1.42
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: not-ipr.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.41
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -b -r1.41 -r1.42
--- not-ipr.it.html 25 Jan 2018 21:30:52 -0000 1.41
+++ not-ipr.it.html 12 Nov 2018 21:58:04 -0000 1.42
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-09-13" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>Hai detto "proprietà intellettuale"? à un miraggio seducente</h2>
<p>di <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a></p>
@@ -350,7 +356,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2018/01/25 21:30:52 $
+$Date: 2018/11/12 21:58:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: not-ipr.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- not-ipr.uk.html 3 Feb 2018 10:36:19 -0000 1.12
+++ not-ipr.uk.html 12 Nov 2018 21:58:04 -0000 1.13
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.uk.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/not-ipr.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-09-13" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>Ðи Ñказали “ÑнÑелекÑÑалÑна
влаÑнÑÑÑÑ”? СпокÑÑливий мÑÑаж!</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Ð ÑÑаÑд СÑолмен</a></p>
@@ -335,7 +341,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2018/02/03 10:36:19 $
+$Date: 2018/11/12 21:58:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/not-ipr.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/not-ipr.uk-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/not-ipr.uk-diff.html 4 May 2017 21:30:03 -0000 1.1
+++ po/not-ipr.uk-diff.html 12 Nov 2018 21:58:04 -0000 1.2
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
<title>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a
Seductive Mirage
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent
years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the
interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use
dates from
-<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=intellectual+property&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1">around</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0">around</em></ins></span>
+<a
href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0">around
1990</a>. (<a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png">Local image
copy</a>)
</p>
@@ -219,15 +219,15 @@
</p>
<p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Rejection of “intellectual
property” is not mere
+Rejection of “intellectual property” is not mere
philosophical recreation. The term does real harm. Apple used it
to <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/11/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-bill-stalls-apple">warp
debate about Nebraska's
“right to repair” bill</a>. The bogus concept gave
-Apple a way to dress up its preference for secrecy, which conficts
+Apple a way to dress up its preference for secrecy, which <span
class="removed"><del><strong>conficts</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>conflicts</em></ins></span>
with its customers' rights, as a supposed principle that customers
and the state must yield to.</p>
-<p></em></ins></span>
+<p>
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or
copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first
step is to
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2010, 2013, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2017</em></ins></span> Richard M.
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
Richard M. Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2017/05/04 21:30:03 $
+$Date: 2018/11/12 21:58:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/not-ipr.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/not-ipr.it-diff.html
diff -N po/not-ipr.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/not-ipr.it-diff.html 12 Nov 2018 21:58:04 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,334 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/not-ipr.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+<title>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a
Seductive Mirage
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive
Mirage</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M.
Stallman</a></p>
+
+<p>
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
+trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three
+separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The
+distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.
+Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way
+out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School,
+the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is
+a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual
+Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent
+years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the
+interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use
dates from
+<a
href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0">around
+1990</a>. (<a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png">Local image
copy</a>)
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking
+about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property
+rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal
+philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law,
+but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like
+physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to
+change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the
+companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the
+bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often
+asked me to propose some other name for the overall category—or
+have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions
+include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for
+Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of
+“exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions
+as “rights” is doublethink too.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a
+mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other
+term. A different name will not address the term's deeper problem:
+overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as
+“intellectual property”—it is a mirage. The only
+reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that
+widespread use of the term has misled them about the laws in question.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to
+lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to
+these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common
+principle and function similarly.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Nothing could be further from the case.
+These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different
+activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and
+art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was
+intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of
+giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over
+it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in
+others.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular
+way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are
+buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual
+property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
+incentives for advertising. And these are just
+three out of many laws that the term refers to.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every
+detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you
+learn some fact about copyright law, you'd be wise to assume that
+patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong!
+</p>
+
+<p>
+In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are
+formulated using “intellectual property” will be false.
+For instance, you'll see claims that “its” purpose is to
+“promote innovation”, but that only fits patent law and
+perhaps plant variety monopolies. Copyright law is not concerned with
+innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is
+nothing innovative about it. Trademark law is not concerned with
+innovation; if I start a tea store and call it “rms tea”,
+that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas in the
+same way as everyone else. Trade secret law is not concerned with
+innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a
+trade secret with nothing to do with innovation.</p>
+
+<p>
+You will also see assertions that “intellectual property”
+is concerned with “creativity”, but really that only fits
+copyright law. More than creativity is needed to make a patentable
+invention. Trademark law and trade secret law have nothing to do with
+creativity; the name “rms tea” isn't creative at all, and
+neither is my secret list of tea customers.</p>
+
+<p>
+People often say “intellectual property” when they really
+mean some larger or smaller set of laws. For instance, rich countries
+often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of
+them. Some of these laws are among those called “intellectual
+property” laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the
+practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to
+them. By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It
+would be better to use an accurate term, such as “legislative
+colonization”, that gets to the heart of the matter.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law
+professors who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the
+seductiveness of the term “intellectual property”, and
+make general statements that conflict with facts they know. For
+example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers
+of the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive attitude to
+intellectual property. They knew rights might be necessary,
+but…they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in
+multiple ways.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>
+That statement refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US
+Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That
+clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law, trade secret
+law, or various others. The term “intellectual property”
+led that professor to make a false generalization.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic
+thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form
+that these disparate laws have—that they create artificial
+privileges for certain parties—and to disregard the details
+which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places
+on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus
+on the form encourages an “economistic” approach to all
+these issues.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined
+assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that
+amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do not,
+and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that
+copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs
+support life-saving research.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term
“intellectual
+property”, the specific issues raised by the various laws become
+nearly invisible. These issues arise from the specifics of each
+law—precisely what the term “intellectual property”
+encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to
+copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed; patent law
+has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether
+poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell
+them cheaply to save lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such
+matters.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their
+noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic
+overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the
+differences. Putting the two laws in the “intellectual
+property” pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Thus, any opinions about “the issue of intellectual
+property” and any generalizations about this supposed category
+are almost surely foolish. If you think all those laws are one issue,
+you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping
+overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Rejection of “intellectual property” is not mere
+philosophical recreation. The term does real harm. Apple used it
+to <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/11/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-bill-stalls-apple">warp
debate about Nebraska's
+“right to repair” bill</a>. The bogus concept gave
+Apple a way to dress up its preference for secrecy, which <span
class="removed"><del><strong>conficts</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>conflicts</em></ins></span>
+with its customers' rights, as a supposed principle that customers
+and the state must yield to.</p>
+
+<p>
+If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or
+copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first
+step is to
+forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate
+topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and
+simplistic picture the term “intellectual property”
+suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
+</p>
+
+<p>And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is <a
+href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html">one proposal for
+changing the name and substance of WIPO</a>.
+</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>
+See also <a href="/philosophy/komongistan.html">The Curious History of
+Komongistan (Busting the term “intellectual property”)</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Countries in Africa are a lot more similar than these laws, and
+“Africa” is a coherent geographical concept; nonetheless,
+<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton">
+talking about “Africa” instead of a specific country
+causes lots of confusion</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+<a
href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/">
+Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term</a>.</p>
+
+<p><a
+href="http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/">
+Cory Doctorow also condemns</a> the term “intellectual
+property.”</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
Richard M. Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/11/12 21:58:04 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy not-ipr.it.html not-ipr.uk.html ...,
GNUN <=