Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On 5/20/14, Lee Winter <lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Richard Hector
> <richard@walnut.gen.nz>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> The phrase I think you are looking for it "the common heritage of all
> mankind". It was stupid when it was adopted by the United Nations,it is
> stupid now, and it will always be a stupid excuse (as opposed to a reasoned
> reason) for preventing people from benefiting from their own efforts.
> Control freaks love it though.
Lee, your words speak for themselves. Unfortunately there will always
be those who are untrained in witnessing assumptions/ presumptions and
non-conclusions, but hey, that's entertainment for you.
Zenaan
Reply to: