Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On 19/05/14 17:42, Lee Winter wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net
> <mailto:zen@freedbms.net>> wrote:
>
> Are you aware that there is a useful (from the perspective of
> freedoms) distinction to be made between physical property and
> so-called 'intellectual property'?
>
>
> No. In fact hell no.
You may not consider the distinction useful; others do.
> Consider if you please (or use the Socratic defense of not listening)
> the definition of property. How does something become property?
> Materials in the "wild" are not property. So how does it become
> property owned by some person(s)?
>
> I like John Locke's answer in the labor theory of
> property/ownership/first appropriation. Natural materials become owned
> when a person, who automatically owns their ownself and thus their own
> labor, mixes that labor with the natural materials. So plowing a field,
> digging a well or a mine, or cutting down a tree are all ways of mixing
> one's labor with raw land, which combination is the basis for all
> property. Even unimproved land can be characterized as property if the
> would-be owner is willing to defend it.
It's an interesting definition; I doubt it's universal. For example, one
might consider that 'wild' materials are owned by everybody, rather than
nobody. So if you improve it, then both parties - everybody as well as
you specifically - part-own it. Or if nobody owns the wild materials,
then it could be considered that you part-own it, and nobody owns the rest.
> Intellectual property is the most pure form of personal property. It
> involves skull sweat. There may be little or no physical property or
> even no tools involved in the creation of the intellectual "stuff". But
> it is absolutely and unconditionally the fruit of human effort. Mental
> effort.
I agree that by your (Locke's) above definition, you own the results of
your thinking. But remember Newton as well - "If I have seen further
than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." The
results of your thinking are almost certainly a 'derivative work' of the
results of many other people's thinking. I would suspect in most cases,
most of what you (not specifically you) come up with is not original.
And if you don't consider pure thought to be property, we're back to
square one.
> And we have an unlimited supply because, while real estate is a finite
> supply, the scope of human thought is not finite. So no limit applies.
> And there is no barrier to entry. One cannot erect a fence to prevent
> people from thinking the way one could erect a fence to protect a field
> against trespassing.
Not only is the scope of human thought not finite, the ability to
reproduce it is also very cheap. That doesn't affect the value of your
labour, but it arguably does affect the price of the result, by simple
supply and demand. That makes it very different from (most) physical
property.
> Intellectual property is the most human form of property. Many animals
> will defend their own territory, often by marking, but always by
> attacking interlopers. Real estate predates humanity, probably by over
> a billion years.
I wouldn't call real estate a form of intellectual property; it's very
physical. Real, even. On the other hand, I would still treat it
differently from ordinary property, on the basis that it will continue
to exist essentially for ever, well beyond the lifetime of the current
owner. As such, I feel that while some form of 'ownership' is generally
ok, it should be considered more like custodianship - the current owner
shouldn't be free to drain it of all its resources, and leave nothing
for the next.
> It sounds like you are somewhat pro-freedom, yet from my position, to
> use the word "property" as Jerry (and here you) are using it, in
> relation to 'intellectual' things (like say mathematical algorithms),
> is actually a conflation brought into our language by the pro-monopoly
> pro-drm etc lobby groups.
>
>
> No. Your history is wrong. And your example is silly because
> mathematical algorithms cannot be protected whether by copyright,
> patent, or trademark,
Well, that may be true under current law (in whatever jurisdiction), but
it's the kind of thing that gets debated and can change.
> They can be protected by trade secrecy,but that
> does not prevent anyone else from coming up with the same secret. But
> _stealing_ a trade secret is theft. Theft of what? Property.
I'm not a lawyer, and certainly don't know the law in all jurisdictions,
but I have my doubts that misappropriation of a trade secret is legally
considered theft, any more than copyright infringement is.
> So you are a socialist. The truth comes out. I should have known.
> Please take your drivel elsewhere.
Hmm. You appear to be applying a label to someone based on a few data
points, then making a complete judgement based on your interpretation of
that label. Not a very strong argument.
> > But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is
> real and
> > worth protecting.
>
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.
>
> Yes he did. To me.
>
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.
>
> Yes he did. To me.
>
> PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to
> this point.
>
>
> I am not unsure. I am absolutely certain.
>
> At the World Science Fiction Convention in Boston (cirra 1980) he made a
> presentation about his then-recent efforts. He also took questions
> from the audience. I asked whether he believed in intellectual property
> at all. He said no. At that point further discussion became pointless
> and I left.
Did you ask about "intellectual creations" or "intellectual property"?
They are very different things. And if you can't cope with further
discussion when the terms don't quite match your understanding, that's
your limitation.
Richard
Reply to: