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

[Adam Moran]

On 12/03/05 19:11, Michael Hart wrote:
> 
> On 12/03/05 08:07, Carlo Traverso wrote:
> 
>>  When you talk to someone, you must start with what they
>>  are able to pay attention to, and then work from
>>  there. . . .
>>
>> That's why we need a name to replace IPR that is good to draw
>> attention. Something like "Intellectual control rights" or
>> "Intellectual restriction rights". You cannot own intellectual
>> content, you can only forbid its diffusion (you can only own the right
>> to restrict its diffusion, not the content itself).
> 
> 
> Now THIS is what we could be talking about!

It seems that there is a term that denotes the intention of the legal 
instruments more appropriately, and their classification thereof:

On 02/03/05 00:35 Seth Johnson wrote:

>> Please note that the term "intellectual property" does not
>> actually occur in the U.S. Copyright Statutes, except in certain
>> footnotes citing the titles of certain Bills.
>> 
>> The appropriate term is the term used there and in the
>> Constitution: *exclusive rights* (if one insists on speaking of
>> copyright, patent and trademark policies as a group).

--
Adam