home@alexhudson.com writes:
You're surely not arguing against the DMCA on the basis that materials can always be hacked, though?
No, just that that part of the WIPO treaty appears to be useless because they can always be hacked.
I'm unsure how to respond to the rest of your points as the differences between copyright and IP law aren't clear to me today. Maybe someone else will do better.
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:24:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I'm unsure how to respond to the rest of your points as the differences between copyright and IP law aren't clear to me today. Maybe someone else will do better.
IP is the wider law, governing copyrights, trademarks, etc. Copyright is merely asserting authorship.
intellectual-property.gov.uk is pretty good.
Cheers,
Alex.
--
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:24:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I'm unsure how to respond to the rest of your points as the differences between copyright and IP law aren't clear to me today. Maybe someone else will do better.
Alex:
IP is the wider law, governing copyrights, trademarks, etc. Copyright is merely asserting authorship. intellectual-property.gov.uk is pretty good.
Actually, "intellectual property" is a buzzword. There is no "IP law" to my knowledge, but there are laws about copyright, patents, trademarks.
"intellectual property" is the term information owners use to spread the idea that owning information is a natural thing just like private property (yes, some of you may disagree, but you get my point anyways).
The truth is different: copyright, patents, trademarks are legal hacks designed to help society as a whole; they are not natural rights and they must not be lumped together as they act in different realms with different means.
<a href="www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty"> His words, not mine. </a>
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 01:56:16PM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
Actually, "intellectual property" is a buzzword. There is no "IP law" to my knowledge, but there are laws about copyright, patents, trademarks.
Well, certainly in the UK, there are laws passed pertaining to 'Intellectual Property' - that is the umbrella under which the things you mention fit. For example, finance bills often refer to Intellectual Property. White papers have been published on the intellectual property system ("Our competitive future: Building the knowledge drived economy" , 1998, for example).
Certainly it is applicable to talk of Intellectual Property, at least in the UK, because it has meaningful legal connotations.
Cheers,
Alex.
--
home@alexhudson.com writes:
Certainly it is applicable to talk of Intellectual Property....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
" The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.... "
The Principles of Newspeak
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 03:18:25PM +0100, Brian Gough wrote:
Certainly it is applicable to talk of Intellectual Property....
" The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.... "
True; but how else do you communicate with someone other than in terms they understand? Given the good Yorkshire practice of calling a spade a spade, I'm inclined call IP IP, since it has an actual meaning applicable to the UK.
Similar to the [cr|h]acker debate - people say hacker, fanatics say cracker, and any attempt to get the majority to relearn that a hacker is in fact a cracker is akin to ordering the sea to retreat....
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 03:18:25PM +0100, Brian Gough wrote:
Certainly it is applicable to talk of Intellectual Property....
" The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.... "
True; but how else do you communicate with someone other than in terms they understand? Given the good Yorkshire practice of calling a spade a spade, I'm inclined call IP IP, since it has an actual meaning applicable to the UK.
Similar to the [cr|h]acker debate - people say hacker, fanatics say cracker, and any attempt to get the majority to relearn that a hacker is in fact a cracker is akin to ordering the sea to retreat....
We don't need to invent new terms. When you write, refer to 'intellectual "property"' or 'so-called intellectualy property' or something like that. I'm sure there are better things to use, I'm just typign while I think.
Compare to the way we use "file-sharing" rather than "piracy". Bothterms are universally udnerstood, but with different connotations. Control of hte metaphors is essential.
Words do matter. I stongly agree with RMS on the subject.
We should talk about copyright, trademarks and patents. They are based on very different concepts.
Intellectal "Property" is a political term with a strong tendency to make people think in one way. Of course a lot of people like to win this political battle, but for the sake of society we have to think more differentiated.
If people do not get the difference, we will loose a lot of freedom to develop Free Software in the end.
Bernhard
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:53:13PM +0100, Alistair Davidson wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 03:18:25PM +0100, Brian Gough wrote:
Certainly it is applicable to talk of Intellectual Property....
" The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.... "
True; but how else do you communicate with someone other than in terms they understand?
We don't need to invent new terms. When you write, refer to 'intellectual "property"' or 'so-called intellectualy property' or something like that. I'm sure there are better things to use, I'm just typign while I think.
Alex Hudson a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 03:18:25PM +0100, Brian Gough wrote:
Certainly it is applicable to talk of Intellectual Property....
" The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.... "
True; but how else do you communicate with someone other than in terms they understand? Given the good Yorkshire practice of calling a spade a spade, I'm inclined call IP IP, since it has an actual meaning applicable to the UK.
Similar to the [cr|h]acker debate - people say hacker, fanatics say cracker, and any attempt to get the majority to relearn that a hacker is in fact a cracker is akin to ordering the sea to retreat....
once upon a time people would say "Negroes". Now they say "the Black", thanks to some "fanatics" anti-slavery...
Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnu.org schrieb/wrote:
"intellectual property" is the term information owners use to spread the idea that owning information is a natural thing just like private property...
Interestingly, this way of thinking came from the French Revolution and is the basis for Continental Europe's "right of authorship" system, not for the Common Law copyright system.
Acutally, the only "intellectual property" is Continental Europe's copyright (and maybe patents as a borderline case); everything else referred to as IP such as trademarks, models, topographies, ... and Common Law copyright is just "commercial property" or even better "commercial investment protection".
Claus