If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
,----[ Quote ]
| The main reason why I have trouble with the "property" part isn't just the
| fact that it leads people to try to pretend it's just like tangible property,
| but because it automatically biases how people think about the concept.
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
Fun with Analogies
,----[ Quote ]
| Copyright maximalists love to draw parallels between property rights and
| copyrights. But if we take that analogy seriously, I think it actually leads
| in some places that they aren't going to like. Our property rights system was
| not created by Congressional (or state legislative) fiat. Property rights in
| land is an organic, bottom up exercize. The job of government isn't to
| dictate what the property system should look like, but to formalize and
| reinforce the property arrangements people naturally agree to among
| themselves.
|
| The fact that our current copyright system is widely ignored and evaded is a
| sign, I think, that Congress has done a poor job of aligning the copyright
| system with ordinary individuals' sense of right and wrong. Just as squatters
| 200 years ago didn't think it was right that they be booted off land they
| cleared and brought under cultivation in favor of an absentee landowner who
| had written a check to a distant federal government, so a lot of people feel
| it's unfair to fine a woman hundreds of thousands of dollars to share a
| couple of CDs' worth of music. You might believe (as do I) that file sharing
| is unethical, just as many people believed that squatting was unethical. But
| at some point, Congress has no choice but to recognize the realities on the
| ground, just as it did with real property in the 19th century.
`----
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/043422.php
"Intellectual property" is starting to be blasted in the mainstream media as
well. It's antiquated, especially in the digital/Internet age. You can't
fine/jail a person for passing articles to colleagues via E-mail or for saving
a Web page.
Related:
"Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism
,----[ Quote ]
| Once the ideas have escaped there's no getting them back ...
|
| "Intellectual property" is one of those ideologically loaded terms that
| can cause an argument just by being uttered. The term wasn't in
| widespread use until the 1960s, when it was adopted by the World
| Intellectual Property Organization, a trade body that later attained
| exalted status as a UN agency.
|
| WIPO's case for using the term is easy to understand: people who've "had
| their property stolen" are a lot more sympathetic in the public
| imagination than "industrial entities who've had the contours of their
| regulatory monopolies violated", the latter being the more common way of
| talking about infringement until the ascendancy of "intellectual
| property" as a term of art.
|
| Does it matter what we call it? Property, after all, is a useful, well-
| understood concept in law and custom, the kind of thing that a punter can
| get his head around without too much thinking.
|
| That's entirely true - and it's exactly why the phrase "intellectual
| property" is, at root, a dangerous euphemism that leads us to all sorts
| of faulty reasoning about knowledge. Faulty ideas about knowledge are
| troublesome at the best of times, but they're deadly to any country
| trying to make a transition to a "knowledge economy".
|
| Fundamentally, the stuff we call "intellectual property" is just
| knowledge - ideas, words, tunes, blueprints, identifiers, secrets,
| databases. This stuff is similar to property in some ways: it can be
| valuable, and sometimes you need to invest a lot of money and labour into
`----
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property
|
|
