[Upd-discuss] Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's aSeductive Mirage by Richard M. Stallman

[Sigmascape1@cs.com]

I agree the term is not perfect, and possibly even misleading for certain things, but I don't know what else to call it.

For the example I gave of Harry Potter, maybe we can just say that Rowling owns the 'Harry Potter Franchise.' I totally agree with you that there is no literal way Rowling can own the idea of a boy who grows up to be a great wizard. There are countless examples if similar situations in the world of "IP."

Thanks,

Mitch


Richard Smedley <richard.smedley03@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 14:35 -0500, Sigmascape1@cs.com wrote:
>> I can see both sides of the issue. However, I have to say that I feel the 
>> term 'intellectual property' is a valid term. Here's an example why... 
>> JK Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books. She owns the copyrights to the 
>> books, and from a commercial standpoint, Harry Potter is most certainly 
>> an intellectual property. JK Rowling owns the 'property'.. property meaning 
>> the copyright of the book and its various licensing offspring. I don't own 
>> it, RMS doesn't own it, only Rowling. What would you call it other than a 
>> 'property'?
>> 
>> I agree with RMS on a lot of issues, this not being one of them.
>
>Hmm - `property' has traditionally referred to physical
>objects. Taking away my property leaves me with nothing.
>This cannot be said about ideas, or anything that can be 
>represented with electrons (books, software, digital
>photographs).
>
>What can be taken away by making copies is some of the 
>ability to exploit an idea for money, and some control
>over the idea.
>
>Copyright protects creative work (books, software, digital
>photographs), and patents and trademarks (in different ways)
>give temporary(!) protection from competition.
>
>Interestingly, while Rowling, whom you give as your example,
>holds copyright on the five Harry Potter novels and two 
>spin-offs, and she (or WB) have an HP trademark, the idea
>of Potter - the /soi-disant/ Potterverse - is there for
>anyone to use, and with the author's blessing. HP fan fiction,
>instances of which number some tens of thousands, exists
>with Rowling's blessing, as she enjoys the different development
>given to `her' characters by thousands of readers. 
>In taking this `property' from Rowling (something people
>would be unable to do were there a Harry Potter patent ;^)
>the books (and their profitability) remain undiminished.
>Were someone to copy and sell the books themselves
>(breaking copyright law), the books' profitability would
>be damaged (though the books themselves would still sell).
>
>If we go around calling patents, trademarks and copyright just
>`property' it hides all of these differences, and makes it
>easier for large corporations, and the politicians that 
>they own, to criminalise the reasonable things that people
>do with things that they /own/ - things that, ironically, 
>they're free to do with other property that they purchase. :-/
>
> - Richard Smedley
>
>--
>
>``Say, for what were hop-yards meant
>  Or why was Burton built on Trent?
>  Oh many a peer of England brews
>  Livelier liquor than the Muse,
>  And malt does more than Milton can
>  To justify God's ways to man''        - Housman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Upd-discuss mailing list
>Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>