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

[Michael Hart]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    The phrase "intellectual property" is here to stay, so go after the
>    meaning of the phase and the difference between that and properties
>    on whicy property tax, luxury tax, etc., are due.
>
> Accepting the term "intellectual property" is the path to defeat.

Not accepting terminology and semantics that you cannot change
is the path to defeat.  Don't confuse the map with the territory.

In this case you are spending more time, energy, and repuation
on changing the map than on changing the territory.

    "God grant me the serenity to
   accept the things I cannot change,
  courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference."


> That term frames the issues in ways that support the WIPO agenda.

The real WIPO agenda, since 1557, has been simply to destroy as
much of the public domain as possible.


> Every time we use the term, we facilitate the WIPO agenda,
> whether or not we agree with it.

"No one ever went broke underestimating their audience."

You are going broke overestimating your audience.


> Anything very large is hard to change.  It takes just a small
> exaggeration to turn that into "it's here to stay".  We could make
> that small exaggeration about the term "intellectual property".
> We could make that small exaggeration about the WIPO agenda, which the
> term "intellectual property" supports.  But if we hope to change
> something that is large and hard to change, we should not equate a
> small chance with zero.

I have spent my entire career changing something that has proven
to be MUCH harder to change than I ever dreamed. . . .

So much so that I get compared to Don Quixote over and over again.

But at least I know the difference between the map and the territory.

You are not going to change WIPO, perhaps one chance in hell of
changing the United Nations, their parent organization, and a few
more chances in hell of changing human nature.

I'm going for human nature, that one is hard enough.



>    Use the phrase "limited intellectual property" if you like, or make
>    up something else.
>
> Adjusting or replacing the term "intellectual property" could
> eliminate the bias, which is one of the term's two problems, but the
> problem of encouraging the public to lump together copyright and
> patent law would remain.

I hate to tell you, but most of the public doesn't even know what
happened in copyright since Project Gutenberg started open source
eBooks in 1971, nor do they care, even when I tell them.

I think that ONLY the magnitude of giving away "The Million Dollar DVD"
{TM} will get their attention, and then we have to tell them afterwards
that 50+ times as much was stolen from the public domain since Project
Gutenberg began.


Michael

BTW, I'm working on The Million Dollar DVD right now.