On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 19:55:50 +0200
Michael Stolovitzsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(by way of Michael Stolovitzsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> ... skipped
Lot's of very good arguments (which I wholeheartedly accept).
> It boils down to a very simple thing. IP is NOT estate.
Bingo. That's why you should avoid using the missleading name:
Intelectual *Property*
Although IANAL, AFAIK Copyrights and Patents do not say the
given item (be it software or an art creation) is the *property*.
They just give the author some control about either the distribution
of his work (copyrights) or the duplication of his "invention"
(patents).
The representatives of the media and software houses like a lot
to call these "IP" as this term reinforces the (false) analogy
to property and other similar terminology (e.g: thieves)
Of course we should find a better name... any suggestions?
What do you say about:
"Intelectual Restriction Rights" == IRR
> My answer to your question of whether it is right to commit IP piracy: as
> long as IP holders abuse their position, IP consumers are not wrong in
> abusing their ones.
Hmmm... as you correctly pointed out in another section, moraly
wrong+wrong isn't always right. I certainly object abusing the
authors IRR. Moreover, as you pointed out elsewhere, it may even
strenthen the bigest abusers (media and other monopols...).
By allowing the public to ignore the results of this abuse ("hey
we can get the latest MS software at no charge, what do we care
about their monopoly"), it makes it harder to show how bad their
abuse of the economic system is.
Regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron
"Linux is free. Clue is not." - Eric S. Raymond
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
