[Upd-discuss] Re: [A2k] EFF, PK Drop ACTA Suit -- Anyone to Take Up the Case Now?

[Mark Harris]

Michael S. Hart wrote:

> All the treaties, laws, etc., use that term.
>
Actually, they don't. The Berne Convention, still the pre-eminent
international agreement on copyright, only uses the term as part of the
titles of the various WIPO bureaux involved in administering it.

Even the WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996) does not attempt to define
copyright as "intellectual property".

The TRIPS Agreement is the first introduction of that term into the
international marketplace and attempts to require regulations from
signatories to strengthen "intellectual property" rights in their
domestic legislation. TRIPS is still a bone of contention around the
world, hence the prolonged DOHA round.

The extended and increased use of the term is definitely by design,
rather than confusion, in order to conflate the matters of trademarks,
patents and copyright in the minds of the public and, more importantly,
politicians theoretically elected by the public. Witness the creation of
WIPO itself, and the growth legal industry around "untangling" issues of
"intellectual property" for businesses and individuals. This is the
element of confusion I believe RMS is referring to.

I agree with RMS that by using the term in opposition to ACTA, the
Broadcast Treaty, and suchlike, or support for the reading disabled
treaty and suchlike, we cede the ground to those that wish to promote
the concept that copyright, patents and trademarks are property. That's
a short step from them demanding that "intellectual property" be treated
like any other property, in terms of perpetuity, inheritance,
transferability, and even confiscation.


> No, this is nonsense. . .no one, even back to the first "patents"
> that started the entire concept of our copyright laws, ever had a
> "single policy of copyrights, patents, and trademarks, trade
> secrets" etc., etc., etc.

You are correct, Michael, in that no-one _intended_ it back then. RMS'
point, which I support, is that the supporters of the term now do indeed
intend that this be the case and that one size should fit all. That is
the reason that we should act, and resist this activity.

> At least make the substantive points FIRST. . .then semantics.

This is not semantics, but tactics - this is a matter of defining the
right battleground. It's a truism in debating that s/he who defines the
terms has the advantage. By fighting the battle of details of
"intellectual property agreements", we lose the war for the protection
of the Commons because we were in the wrong place and tilting at many
very small windmills.

Regards

Mark Harris
Technology Research and Consultancy Services Ltd
New Zealand

m: +6421444954
e: mark@tracs.co.nz
s: nzlemming
t: @nzlemming
w: http://tracs.co.nz/