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

[James Love]

My problem with the obsession with the term intellectual property is
that gets in the way of discussing intellectual property policy.  Anyone
who thinks these things (patents, copyrights, trademarks, drug
registration data, trade secrets, protection of non-copyrighted elements
of databases, industrial designs of all types, etc) have nothing in
common are not paying attention to the policy space, and sometimes tying
both hands behind their backs, or not even engaging in really important
debates.

With Obama choosing to back ACTA, it is going to happen unless something
is done.  The opposition has to substantive, explaining in simple terms
why ACTA is a bad idea, and not waste all of its bandwidth and the
scarce attention of policy makers and the public on an esoteric and not
completely convincing debate over the word intellectual property.

At least, that's my opinion.


On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 13:51 +1200, Mark Harris wrote:
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>