Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>]

On 5/19/14, Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:50:44PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, Lee Winter <lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real
>> > and
>> > worth protecting.
>>
>> RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.
>>
>> RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.
>>
>> PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to this
>> point.
>
> RMs said to me, personally, that "intellectual property" does not exist
> except legally and should not exist legally. Cite: personal communication.

Thank you. That's good, anecdotal as it is. Here are some more
official FSF materials:

The short version:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

Which includes the following para:
"The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the
way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy
with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical
property."

This is an unpacking of what I was referring to in an earlier email as
"conflation" of terms.

The next para is: "When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards
the crucial difference between material objects and information:
information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while
material objects can't be."

And the final para (I have not quoted them all) says "The hypocrisy of
calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the World
“Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.
[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html]";
 - I find that link interesting indeed.

The long version is here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

Quoting its first paragraph: "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. "

And these: "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. "

"People often say “intellectual property” 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 “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. "

"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. "

I recommend reading the whole statement though...

Cheers,
Zenaan