Weekly Edition
Return to the Letters page
| |||||||||||||
Letter to the editor
This letter is really addressed to you, the editors, as well as to
(Log in to post comments)
Letter to the editor Posted Oct 27, 2005 1:51 UTC (Thu) by doogie (guest, #2445) [Link] Ah, typical RMS. This is a standard thing from him; "do as I say, because I have said it." It gives no reasoning why, no details, absolutely no explanation as to why we shouldn't use intellectual property rights as a phrase.
Are you referring to the letter or the link? Posted Oct 27, 2005 3:04 UTC (Thu) by spiv (subscriber, #9031) [Link] He wrote "See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml for more explanation." I think rather than repeat his arguments, he simply linked to where they are already published.
Or does your criticism refer to that link?
Are you referring to the letter or the link? Posted Oct 27, 2005 12:24 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] I think that the crux of the link is this paragraph, which I'll arrange slightly:
These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
Paraphrasing what I think is RMS's point: if copyright, patent, and trademark law were .a files, and you tried to compile them into an intellectual property exectutable, you should encounter serious link-time errors, because the legal symbols are incompatible.
Are you referring to the letter or the link? Posted Oct 27, 2005 21:00 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Well, and as for calling it 'intellectual property' (note that I haven'tread RMS's document yet) one problem you face is granting legitimacy to the concept that someone can actually 'own' an idea. And government is supposed to make laws to keep people from stealing the things we 'own', so...
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 29, 2005 20:28 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I scoured the link for an explanation of how the thing in question is not intellectual property, but couldn't find it. Apparently, RMS has a definition of property that doesn't fit what copyright and patent law create, but I can't tell what that definition is. I find that copyright and patent law create something exactly analogous in essence to physical property and, even more so, real property (land). Real property is probably the most basic use of the word "property" and all it is is putting restrictions on where other people can go, like patent law puts restrictions on who can build something. There are plenty of people who think a person has no moral right to control land in ways the law permits him to, just like some people think a person shouldn't be able to lock up an idea.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 30, 2005 12:52 UTC (Sun) by pontus (subscriber, #3701) [Link] Real property, when you give it away, or somebody steals it from you, you don't have it anymore. You made a loss. With "intellectual property", if you give it away, you still have it. Everybody wins.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 30, 2005 16:53 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] When people say "intellectual property," they don't mean the copy or the information; they mean the copyright. When you give someone a copyright, you don't have it any more.The analogy in real property to the copy of a document is access to a road. You can let people cross your land and still have the ability to cross it yourself, yet you have the legal right to stop someone from crossing your land (which you might do so that you can charge a toll, same as you might stop someone from copying a document so you can charge royalties).
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 30, 2005 18:43 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] When you give someone a copyright, you don't have it any more.Not true. When you contribute to the FSF, you must assign the copyright to them; but you also keep it. Both parties can do as they wish with the work covered. Joint copyright does not work like joint property; each part keeps 100% of "ownership". Also, there is nothing in property equivalent to copyleft: each party can sublicense a work as they wish. Anyway, it is not RMS who has to explain how copyright is not property; burden of proof lies on the one postulating a similarity.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 31, 2005 2:06 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] When you give someone a copyright, you don't have it any more.Not true. When you contribute to the FSF, you must assign the copyright to them; but you also keep it. So you're saying when you contribute to FSF, you don't give anyone your copyright. The fact remains that when you do give someone a copyright (something that happens every day), you don't have it any more. I agree there are forms of joint ownership of a copyright that aren't possible with real property, but the difference is not significant -- 99% of what makes property property is still there. When you own a copyright jointly with someone else, you don't each have 100%. The main value of copyright is being able to limit other's freedoms. If two people own it, each has less power to do that. Not unlike real property.
it is not RMS who has to explain how copyright is not property; burden of proof lies on the one postulating a similarity. I don't know how you could believe that. We're talking about a letter in which RMS proposes to change the status quo. He asks that a person who today believes that "intellectual property" is a good name for something stop using it. The burden is on RMS.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 31, 2005 13:49 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I agree there are forms of joint ownership of a copyright that aren't possible with real property, but the difference is not significant -- 99% of what makes property property is still there.Not correct. Property does not expire, copyright does. Property is exclusive, copyright is not. Copyleft (where one party can be licensee and sublicensor at the same time, not joint ownership) has no equivalent. Copyright allows a degree of control over distribution and modification, and even separation between the two; while property does not. Compulsory licensing e.g. for versions in music is not easily assimilable either. Also, there is no "fair use" in property, no distinction between commercial and private use... This only in the US; internationally things get worse. I would therefore say that 99% of copyright is different from property. I agree that many people want to assimilate copyright to "property", but this is an afterthought. And still, there are other areas covered under "intellectual property" which do not resemble real property in any way: e.g. trade secrets or DRM. Sure, some of these can be exchanged for money, but so can be many other things (sex, work, child custody) and few sane people would call that "property". The main value of copyright is being able to limit other's freedoms.Funny way to see it. I would have said its main value is the right to collect royalties. He asks that a person who today believes that "intellectual property" is a good name for something stop using it.Sure, so it is not Stallman who postulates a similarity. I would have thought that those defending the use of the concept have to justify it, but what do I know.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 31, 2005 20:57 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] There are close equivalents to all of those things in real property, and they don't stop anyone from regarding it as property. But more importantly, I don't see any of them as a significant part of what makes property property. I see as much difference between a copyright and land as between land and a horse. As I understand it, your and RMS' definition of property easily accomodates land and horses, but not copyright.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Nov 1, 2005 10:14 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] To be fair, I don't know Stallman's definition of property. From his paper I gather that what he fears is precisely that copyright will be assimilated to other property. Current copyright laws are being made to resemble a naïve property-like regime, which is not desirable.In other words, Stallman's paper deals with policy, not with definition. Copyright can be made to be exactly equal to physical property, and owning a song just like owning a pencil, but it is not in our best interest.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 31, 2005 20:20 UTC (Mon) by pontus (subscriber, #3701) [Link] The road is the property, access to it is a property right. The computer program is the 'property', the copyright is an intellectual property right. Property rights are there to preserve the property for the owner, since the use of the property for the owner diminishes if more people use it. Intellectual property rights are there to grant a (limited) monopoly to the creator as an incentive to create more, which is something completely different, and treating them similarly can only confuse the issue, which I believe is RMS's point.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Oct 31, 2005 22:49 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] They teach in law school that property is defined as a collection of property rights, and I don't see any more useful definition of property. RMS acknowledges this definition, but says most people use a different one, hence the IP nomenclature problem. But I still can't see what that alternative definition is.If in the road case the asphalt itself, and not the exclusive right to use it, is the property, then virtually all general statements about property are meaningless. Asphalt has practically nothing in common with bread, but bread is called property too. What bread and roads have in common when we call them property is that someone can have a similar exclusive legal right to use each. They have that in common with copyright too.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Nov 1, 2005 17:26 UTC (Tue) by pontus (subscriber, #3701) [Link] Maybe what most people mean when they say 'intellectual property and physical property are completely different', is that the underlying objects that the property rights apply to are completely different, and so should be treated differently. The reasons for instituting the protection are different too. Now that property and intellectual property are analogous legal concepts, as you say, then I think this is an absurd situation we are in because the field of 'intellectual property' is comparatively immature, and it's time to do something about it.
RMS fails to explain how it isn't property Posted Nov 4, 2005 21:30 UTC (Fri) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] I think you didn't scour hard enough
So one objection is that IPR is a single term for several very different things. When someone asks "do you think IPRs are good or bad?" it's impossible for RMS (or any honest, thoughful person) to give a simple answer, yet there are plenty of politicians, CEOs and media commentators who pretend that there is a simple answer to this question and who'll happily imply that anyone who differs with them wants to ruin the global economy. Also, on the real vs intellectual property distinction, there's no "real" analog to patents. There can be only 1 patent of a given type whereas there can be any number physical objects of a given type. If I make a chair, it's my chair, I have no fear that later on my chair will just disappear and I'll have to pay someone for a new one, just because they made the first chair 6 months before I did. However if I invent a compression algorithm I might find that I cannot use it, even though it is entirely my original invention because someone else invented it 6 months before me.
the link provides an explanation, doogie Posted Oct 27, 2005 3:05 UTC (Thu) by tcabot (subscriber, #6656) [Link] I found the document to which RMS linked to be a quite detailed explanation of his opinion; he does this for most (maybe all) of his opinions. It's OK to disagree with him, I often do, but it's incorrect to say that he doesn't explain himself. For more explanations, in detail, please see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
Letter to the editor Posted Oct 28, 2005 20:22 UTC (Fri) by diakka (guest, #10310) [Link] It gives no reasoning why, no details, absolutely no explanation as to why we shouldn't use intellectual property rights as a phrase.From the letter: That term is propaganda for those that want stricter copyright and patent laws.He actually states why right off the bat. And I agree with him. In the LWN discussion of the "IPR" article, I proposed creating of an alternative to the IPR term. Although that could possibly be seen as counter propaganda. One problem I see is simply that of the English language. The word "patent" doesn't really convey a specific meaning to your average Joe. In Chinese, the word for patent (zhuan1 li4 quan2) translates directly to something like "exclusive profit/benefit authority". If the public were more aware of what exactly patents entailed, it could be an advantage in fighting software patents and overly restrictive copyright laws.
Letter to the editor Posted Oct 27, 2005 2:44 UTC (Thu) by pyxis (guest, #15886) [Link] For whom (as me) doesn't know what's the "Community Lisbon Process", look to http://lwn.net/Articles/156181/.
No rational way to talk about "intellectual property" Posted Oct 27, 2005 5:56 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] I must concur with RMS on this. The term "intellectual property" is misleading, obscures the issues that need to be discussed, and defeats rational debate about whatever topic it is applied to.
It's also entirely unnecessary to use that term. If there's something to discuss, use the terms of the actual topic. "Intellectual property" is not a coherent topic.
"intellectual property" poor phrase Posted Oct 27, 2005 6:19 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] I also agree, it's a common but extremely misleading phrase. But it does no good to just complain, or say that you should give a long list of legal options. There _IS_ a need for a phrase that discusses the grouping of copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret laws.Why not just use the term "intellectual rights"? It's simpler and shorter than the term "intellectual property rights", without the misleading notion that results of the intellect are identical to tangible property. It even hints at the idea that all parties have rights, whereas "intellectual property rights" implies that only one party has all the rights.
"intellectual property" poor phrase Posted Oct 27, 2005 7:16 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > Why not just use the term "intellectual rights"? It's simpler and shorter> than the term "intellectual property rights", without the misleading notion > that results of the intellect are identical to tangible property.
It has the similar problem that it prejudges the issue. Calling these things "rights" presupposes that the monopolies and exclusions they artificially enforce are somehow "rights".
Any single term presuming to lump copyright law, patent law, trademark law, trade secret law, design law, confidentiality law, and many other legal areas -- with all the disparate balances, forces and implementations of each one -- into a single concept that one can make coherent statements about, is foolhardy and/or misleading.
All the things that some people attempt to whitewash with the single term "intellectual property" have different origins, different implementations, different effects, different ethical balances, different moral balances, and different consequences. Rational debate can only be served by refusing to treat them as a coherent topic.
"intellectual property" poor phrase Posted Oct 27, 2005 8:44 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] I agree.Treating for example trademarks as if they have something significant in common with say patents makes rational debate impossible. There is pretty much nothing that is common for a patent and a trademark, there's nothing useful you can say that'll apply to both of them. Putting them both in a box and give that box a name is about as useful as insisting we need some phrase to refer to the combination of cars and bananas. If we had one, let's say "carnana", what would we use it for ? Is it useful to discuss the properties of carnanas ? They're both physical is about the lot of it. Just like "neither is physical" is about the lot of it for trademark and patent.
"intellectual property" poor phrase Posted Oct 27, 2005 9:47 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] The fact that trademarks and patents are completely different things in a legal context doesn't mean that they don't have anything in common in another context. Discussing semantics without taking into account the proper context does not make much sense.So if you are of the opinion that the phrase "intellectual property" does not mean anything, it more or less means that you are not able to find or grasp any context that provides this meaning. While this principle is obvious in atomic physics, it is much harder to see in linguistics. ;-) (Think about it: which of the words "intellectual" and "property" in the phrase "intellectual property" is the more offending one, and why? More importantly, why am I asking this?)
"intellectual property" still a confusing phrase Posted Oct 27, 2005 22:08 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] So if you are of the opinion that the phrase "intellectual property" does not mean anything, it more or less means that you are not able to find or grasp any context that provides this meaning.On the contrary, I find too many contexts to provide this meaning. So many that it is confusing. To provide some examples:
(Think about it: which of the words "intellectual" and "property" in the phrase "intellectual property" is the more offending one, and why?"Intellectual", if I have to choose; the combination, if you ask me. I have always felt repulsion to paying others (so called intellectuals) to do the thinking for me. But the concept of someone owning an idea (intellectual property) is totally opposite to my idea of fairness. Still in this context, what is really offending is those that take advantage of this inaccurate phrase to restrict what others can do or even think. More importantly, why am I asking this?)I don't know. Because you think you are discovering the inner communist within us?
"intellectual property" still a confusing phrase Posted Oct 28, 2005 10:56 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] On the contrary, I find too many contexts to provide this meaning. Which is exactly my point.
You lost me here. It's really not that difficult. For instance, your interpretation of "intellectual property" as "owning an idea" (not to mention that you also impose a moral verdict on it) skews any discussion before it has even started. To me, phrases such as "intellectual property" only make some sense in the context of free versus proprietary software: to me it represents all legal clauses that go against the spirit of Free Software. Do notice that this interpretation has nothing to do with the common meanings of or associations with the phrases "intellectual", "property" or "intellectual property": it is in fact purely practical, and, more importantly, I choose to interpret it that way for the sake of the discussion. If I were to think about "intellectual property" at the level of copies, ideas and publications, I'd be quite confused too.
"intellectual property" still a confusing phrase Posted Oct 28, 2005 21:27 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] To me, phrases such as "intellectual property" only make some sense in the context of free versus proprietary software: to me it represents all legal clauses that go against the spirit of Free Software.And this does not "skew discussion before it has even started" or "impose a moral veredict on it"? more importantly, I choose to interpret it that way for the sake of the discussion.But it is only you who does that. The discussion becomes meaningless, since you assign arbitrary value to the phrase "intellectual property", and it has nothing to do with its constituents or its common value. You see, this is another reason why nobody should use the term: since it is not coherent, everyone can choose a different meaning, so there is no way to have a meaningful discussion.
"intellectual property" still a confusing phrase Posted Oct 29, 2005 7:38 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] And this does not "skew discussion before it has even started" or "impose a moral veredict on it"? No, why?! Do you know the principles of Free Software? It is a list of four points. "Intellectual property" is the biggest common denominator of legal clauses I know of that is at odds with these points. No moral judgement there, but it is telling that you seem to find one.
I really can't follow your logic. So I'm not allowed to interpret phrases in any way, is that what you're saying?! Or do I have to choose your interpretation? Would that be okay?
"intellectual property" still a confusing phrase Posted Oct 29, 2005 12:59 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] "Intellectual property" is the biggest common denominator of legal clauses I know of that is at odds with these points.This is just your special definition which is not used elsewhere. For example, copyright per se is not at odds with free software; it can in fact be used to perpetuate it as in copyleft. Regular patents (the non-software kind, the ones allowed e.g. in the UE) have nothing to do with free software. And yet these things are commonly considered an important part of "intellectual property". So your "definition" obviously skews the discussion. No moral judgement there, but it is telling that you seem to find one.I find an implicit moral judgement, yes: free software is obviously good since free things are usually considered better than proprietary ones (especially in places like LWN); anything at odds with free software must therefore be bad. So I'm not allowed to interpret phrases in any way, is that what you're saying?!You can interpret as much as you like, but sometimes the discussion suffers. Here you are choosing a subset of possible uses in order to make the phrase coherent, which is perfect. But when there is a problem of terminology, we have to reach a consensus on the meaning of things before we can engage in rational discussion. It is not enough to say "Fruit is expensive, and here I interpret the word 'fruit' to refer only to bananas"; we should all agree on that. Or do I have to choose your interpretation? Would that be okay?No! that would not be okay. That is what some of us are trying to say all along: there is no "correct" interpretation, so it is better to avoid the phrase altogether.
"intellectual property" still a confusing phrase Posted Oct 29, 2005 16:40 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] This is just your special definition which is not used elsewhere. I very explicitly stated that my given interpretation of "intellectual property" was my special definition. It doesn't bother me one bit that I'm probably the only one who is using it, because that's how interpretations usually work, or it least, you should assume it.
Mmmhh.. I don't remember telling you what exact legal clauses I think can be lumped into "intellectual property", so your explanation escapes me a bit. Copyright is not at all at odds with free software, and I never said it was. When engaging in a discussion it is usually best to just ask if it's not clear what you are talking about.
Now, finally, you're making sense. In fact, this is exactly my point. Phew. ;-)
"intellectual property" makes some sense Posted Oct 28, 2005 20:41 UTC (Fri) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link] Let me be a bit of a "devil's advocate" here. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are quite a bit more similar than cars and bananas, so that analogy is pointless. They all involve generation of novel or original ideas, whether a brand name and logo, principle behind operation of a machine, or a text or other stream of letters, numbers, symbols, bits, brush strokes, what have you. They all involve excluding others from certain uses of those ideas. And they all can be bought, sold, and "rented" in the sense of licensing. Furthermore, they're next to each other in the U.S. Constitution, and adjudicated by the same branch or close to the same branch in most governments that I know of, making them valid to discuss together in something like the Community Lisbon Process.
Perhaps "idea exclusivities" would be more appropriate? I'm not sure that's all that different from "intellectual property". But to say that the three are as different as cars and bananas is simply not true, it doesn't help to clarify the issues at all, and it certainly doesn't help to move forward our agenda.
When RMS gets on his high horse about insisting that others not use "Linux" without "GNU", or not use the term "intellectual property", and refuses to have a conversation which doesn't satisfy his ground rules, IMO he does more harm than good to our cause. Yes, semantics matter, I've been careful to say GNU/Linux myself when referring to more than just the kernel. But to the policy makers and general public whose votes we care about, it keeps us out of debates we need to be in, and just sounds like so much whining.
"intellectual property" makes some sense Posted Oct 29, 2005 8:25 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Agreed completely. ;-)I would even go a bit further. This naming game is extremely distracting: I think it is more important that we agree on the meaning, rather than the exact phrasing of concepts. Especially if the concept is abstract enough that it only has value (or meaning) in a discussion. Instead of trying to make everybody agree on the phrasing and assuming that all of a sudden they know what they're talking about, it might be cleverer to just explain things a bit better, like you did. Of course this only makes sense if your mind is open enough to understand that "rights" can actually be "restrictions" in at least some contexts -- which makes the whole discussion of whether to call something a "right" or a "restriction" a bit of a farce, especially if you adhere to vague notions of "rights are good, restrictions are bad" (or the other way around, whatever). This morality of course lies at the heart of the point RMS is trying to make. When speaking about the operating system commonly referred to as "Linux", I point out that Linux is actually only its kernel, if necessary. I then also point out that it contains a lot of GNU software, and that there are people that like to call it "GNU/Linux" for that reason, even though the system contains a lot of software that has nothing to do with GNU or Linux. And then I drop this totally uninteresting distraction and just call the damn thing Linux.
not rights Posted Oct 27, 2005 10:00 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Why not just use the term "intellectual rights"?First, because they are not rights, second because they are not necessarily intellectual. Intellectual can mean many things: related to reason, rational rather than emotional, having brains. Trade secrets for example are a restriction to discussion and therefore reason, NDAs often to comprehension; copyright pretty often covers purely emotional stuff; and many patents just show little in the way of brains. A right is something which allows me to do something. E.g. European copyright is based on author rights, which establish an author's right to be compensated, choose publisher, and so on. This new interpretation of "a right" to forbid things is a stretch that does not have much to do with the original concept; that is why many people talk about "intellectual property restrictions". And no, when "intellectual property rights" are discussed, the rights of readers or users are not discussed. All these new "intellectual property rights" have indeed something in common: the insatiable greed of the proponents and how little respect they show for their own audience. I therefore propose the term "greedy bastard restrictions" to use when referring to software patents, trade secrets, NDAs, broadcast flags and DRM. Stuff like traditional copyright should not be lumped together here.
not rights Posted Oct 27, 2005 12:29 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] Yes, I agree, it's an abuse of "intellectual", some of the things it covers are indeed un-intellectual or even anti-intellectual.
Stock analysts refer to things that have value on the balance sheet, but no physical material substance, as intangibles. These include, but are not limited to, patents, copyrights and brand names.
So I'd suggest "intangible property rights", which has the advantage of leaving the acronym IPR unaltered. This also makes it clear that the class is meaningful. If you can kick it, it's ordinary property. If you can't, it's intangible. If the law doesn't let you own it, it's not property at all.
The debate about what rights the law should grant over particular classes of intangible, and indeed over whether there should be any rights granted at all, is unaffected.
again, not rights, and not a property Posted Oct 27, 2005 14:46 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Sorry, but it does not work. As stated above those discussions are not about rights, but about restrictions. Also, many of those things are not property and cannot be treated as such.Copyright is not a "property", e.g. when you assign a copyright to the FSF you can keep it too. Also, in property there is nothing similar to copyleft. Trade secrets cannot either be assimilated to a "property": you do not "possess" a trade secret. Once it is leaked outside the organization, it does not exist any more. So I would not trust stock analysts too much -- they can put a price on many things which are not worth anything. Remember the internet boom and "price per eyeball"? Was that an "intangible property"? If you want to leave out "property" and talk about "intangible rights" (or even restrictions), then we can discuss free speech, classified information and all kinds of unrelated things. Not very useful. It may be hard to grasp, but the reason the term "intellectual property" (also "intellectual property rights") is not correct is because those things lumped under it are a disjoint set, and it makes no sense to discuss them together.
IPR means Intellectual Progress Restrictions Posted Oct 27, 2005 14:41 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] If this three letter acronym is unlikely to go away just because we find it inconvenient, we could better turn it around by recasting it to illuminate our side of this debate by always expanding IPR to Intellectual Progress Restrictions.
Sharing is similarly a better word than piracy, given that the original meaning of the word: sharing has more to do with fair use rights and nothing to do with armed robbery on the high seas.
No single term makes sense for such unrelated concepts Posted Oct 27, 2005 22:12 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > [...] illuminate our side of this debate by always expanding IPR to> Intellectual Progress Restrictions.
That has exactly the same problem: it falsely presumes that there is a single underlying concept about which it makes sense to have an opinion.
The fact that the huge range of issues that lurk behind the flimsy curtain of that single curtain are *not* black and white, nor even related at some level, means that it's false to even apply a single label to them all.
As another poster said, it makes no sense to even put all these concepts in the same box, because it implies that somehow they all fit together and can be excluded from other issues. That's a fallacy, an insidious one, and to use a single term for them all only attempts to support that fallacy.
While software patents are bad, not all patents are necessarily bad; while current copyright regimes are draconian, not all copyright is necessarily bad; while NDAs can be unfriendly, confidentiality law can hardly be called all bad; and so on.
To pretend to have a single, coherent opinion on such a broad, disparate range of legal areas can only lead to ceasing debate on topics that desperately need serious debate.
IPR means Intellectual Progress Restrictions Posted Oct 28, 2005 10:06 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] It seems to me that the most likely way to kill discussion of restrictions of our freedoms (between the greedy and the powerful using the IPR acronym to mislead) is by casting a sense of ridicule upon use of this term. The alternative of refusing to engage in the debate because we don't agree with the terms used within it gives linguistic ground to our opponents. In my view a better tactic is to recast the terms of the debate to our advantage if neccessary by redefining the terms we don't like.
Richard Stallman has demonstrated mastery of this tactic in other areas, e.g. by talking about sharing instead of piracy and treacherous computing instead of trusted computing. If we can't otherwise prevent other people making use of the IPR term for ends which we oppose, we are better off making the point that this to us, is an Intellectual Progress Restriction.
To "kill discussion" is not a goal I share Posted Oct 28, 2005 12:32 UTC (Fri) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > It seems to me that the most likely way to kill discussion of restrictions> of our freedoms [...] is by casting a sense of ridicule upon use of this > term.
I reiterate that the goal I'm seeking is to *open* rational discussion to the parties involved, not to kill it with ridicule or any other method.
To "kill discussion" is not a goal I share Posted Nov 3, 2005 14:50 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] OK I could have phrased that one better. We want discussion but not on the terms of others. Having seperate discussion of patents, trademarks and copyrights is welcome. Having attempts to lump these under a single misleading term is better ridiculed in order to encourage the discussion to occur on terms on which rational debate are possible.
IPR means Intellectual Progress Restrictions Posted Oct 28, 2005 17:50 UTC (Fri) by mhw (guest, #13931) [Link] RMS asked me to post this:
IPR means Intellectual Progress Restrictions Posted Oct 29, 2005 8:44 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] I would agree that software patents are "intellectual progress restrictions", and maybe patents in other fields (though I am less certain), but I would not characterize trademarks that way, nor all copyrights.See, this makes no sense to me. You are trying to find the exact phrasing that does cover all the concepts that you apparently cannot lump into "intellectual progress restrictions". Why don't you just write down a definition and try to get people to agree on its meaning, if that's what you care about? Oh wait, that's not what you care about.
Who needs a common term? Posted Oct 29, 2005 14:15 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Who is looking for a common term? We don't want to cover all disparate concepts. We just want to have separate discussions on copyright, patents, trade marks, and the rest. Broad generalizations do not work. Is it really that hard to understand?
Who needs a common term? Posted Oct 29, 2005 17:25 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] What a waste of time then!It sure looked to me as if we were still seriously debating the pros and cons of some random phrases, but to be fair, of course RMS was the first to point out the uselessness of the term "IPR". You didn't get the sarcasm, but that's okay. Now, of course broad generalizations work. Yours just don't. ("Broad generalizations do not work", how's that for a broad generalization?) As always, when trying to make things more abstract, you gain generality at the expense of some specifics. As long as the specifics are neglectable -- and that depends on context --, this is okay. You know, there is no such thing as "patent law". There are only patent laws. But it is easier to talk about "patent law", and, more importantly, we all know what is meant by it. Or we think we do. ;-)
Letter to the editor Posted Oct 27, 2005 15:28 UTC (Thu) by cdmiller (subscriber, #2813) [Link] I agree whole heartedly with RMS. Please make an effort in LWN to keep up the integrity of the publication by not succumbing to tactics attempting to redefine a debate with invented language that suits a specific agenda at the expense of the truth.
re: "the integrity of the publication" Posted Oct 27, 2005 18:48 UTC (Thu) by gravious (subscriber, #7662) [Link] I, for one, couldn't agree more. The misuse of the term "intellectual property" is just one more example in a long line of scandalous lapses of judgment from the once pristine Linux Weekly News. Taken together with the recent information that the OSI has taken down the Halloween documents (with Halloween just around the corner coincidentally) I can only infer that the one remaining bastion of intellectual clarity and honesty is the Free Software Foundation. Where do I, for one, sign up?
:-)
re: "the integrity of the publication" Posted Oct 28, 2005 1:30 UTC (Fri) by raytd (guest, #4823) [Link] The misuse of the term "intellectual property" is just one more example in a long line of scandalous lapses of judgment from the once pristine Linux Weekly News.
It would probably be more helpful if you were to inform the editors with a detailed description of your grievances, rather than making vague accusations in a comment. I, for one, do not know what "scandalous lapses of judgment" you are writing about. Where do I, for one, sign up? If you are serious about signing up, it took about 2 clicks to find this: https://www.fsf.org/donate. Have fun.
re: "the integrity of the publication" Posted Oct 28, 2005 9:58 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] A little bit irony-impaired, aren't you? (OK, I won't quarrel if it was irony or sarcasm.)
He even added a :-) for people like you.
re: "the integrity of the publication" Posted Oct 28, 2005 19:07 UTC (Fri) by amazingblair (guest, #2789) [Link] LOL!! -Blair
Letter to the editor Posted Oct 30, 2005 9:05 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Please make an effort in LWN to keep up the integrity of the publication by not succumbing to tactics attempting to redefine a debate with invented language that suits a specific agenda at the expense of the truth. Brilliant. ;-) New and improved groupthink, get it while it's hot.
|
|||||||||||||