Fwd: Re: [ox-en]
the oekonux list has picked up this thread about IP:
On Friday 31 October 2003 23:30, Graham Seaman wrote:
patents, copyright,
and design rights do have something in common - they involve the
legal granting of a right of monopoly
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [ox-en] The term "intellectual property"
Date: Saturday 01 November 2003 09:41
From: Martin Hardie <auskadi tvcabo.co.mz>
To: list-en oekonux.org, Graham Seaman <graham seul.org>
Yes I too sympathise with what rms is trying to do.
I think that trying to pose the question from the othe side is a noble
exercise, ie using language that describes the thing in a way that capital
may not, but Graham's point is right I think.
What rms seems to be doing by differentiating beteeen Positive Legal
categories may be falling into the same trap as he is trying to avoid by not
using the term IP.
It's better, I submit, to understand that at their core they all have the
factor noted by Graham in common, and then commence your
enquiry/re-imagination of the term or concept from that point. In rejecting
the term IP you need to reject the lowest common denominator of all its
categories, not just hive off one and say we only want to deal with that.
To put it another way - my work in part involves thinking about the
production of community knowledge in Aboriginal Australia and in FOSS. Raher
than trying to "manage difference" by creating different legal categories I
am wondering if there is not a global model of mainating the integirty of
all these community projects across the board - i.e. a global solution based
upon the common factor of community knowledge production rather than the
exchange of a commodity/form of IP that the various locales of community
knowledge produce.
I am not sure if that helps anyone here deal witht the topic, but to repeat I
think what rms proposes - searching for a new term is a good idea, ie
rejecting the characterisation as property; but as Graham says (or as I read
him) you can't divide and rule between different forms of IP because at their
core they have the same logic/raison d'etre.
Thanks
Martin
On Friday 31 October 2003 23:30, Graham Seaman wrote:
patents, copyright,
and design rights do have something in common - they involve the
legal granting of a right of monopoly
--
http://openflows.org/~auskadi/
"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false,
which
would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which is a
virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that
certainly exists or happened."Bishop Otto to Baudolino
-------------------------------------------------------
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://openflows.org/~auskadi/
"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false,
which
would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which is a
virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that
certainly exists or happened."Bishop Otto to Baudolino
_______________________________________________
prep-l mailing list
prep-l geneva03.org
http://lists.emdash.org/mailman/listinfo/prep-l