Another private mail bounces the list:
On Monday 25 November 2002 12:09, you wrote:
> 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).
Technically, it's true. They provide an author with exclusive right to
distribute and sublicense a work. However within the lifespan of such right,
the intellectual work becomes similar to a physical asset in that it has
established ownership.
Still, "intellectual property" is not right.
> 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)
...and, in essence, gives grounds to hold by the old business model.
> Of course we should find a better name... any suggestions?
> What do you say about:
> "Intelectual Restriction Rights" == IRR
That is not exactly proper either. It is of course as sarcastic as calling
DRM "Digital Restriction Methods", but still isn't descriptive enough.
Actually, the question of proper definition of what we know as "intellectual
property" is complicated itself. Needless to say that "IP" does not only
consist of the wit and genuine thought of the author - it also [arguably]
consists of foreknowledge that the author obtained from the society during
life and education, including theoretic knowledge that developed over many
generations. It is, in fact, arguable which part of an invention, software,
or work of art is more vital to the existence of such work - the social
involvement or the author's involvement.
Based on such ground it can even be argued that an author who wishes to
receive fair compensation for his work must be prepared to unconditionally
acknowledge that the society, both past and present, is a major contributor
to his own work and is therefore entitled to the fair compensation as well.
Two steps from there one can arguably conclude that closed source software is
amoral, unfair and should be illegal.
> > 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.
Then again, it is also not always wrong.
> 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.
That wasn't exactly the point. The point I was trying to make is that there
can not be no absolute "right" or "wrong". Absolutism is an outcome of
close-minded, biased evaluation. Saying that "IP piracy" is absolutely right
or absolutely wrong and there can be no further discussion about it (which is
exactly what mulix respectably proposed) is akin to bashing homosexuality,
banning weapons, prohibiting abortions and marijuana. It's pure close
mindeness.
As an avant-guarde of the Internet intelligence, we can not afford to be sick
with this plague. We can not just choose right or wrong regardless of the
context it is applied to. If we, the Free Software people, do not stand for
elementary thought of one's own, who will?
> 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
--
"I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why
don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem
solve itself?"
================================================================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]
