Structures of Intellectual Property

PeterP writes: "ARSTechnica has an interesting editorial today. It advocates altering the discussion of intellectual property laws to be one of structures, as opposed to rights. Kind of a breath of fresh air from the dogmatic, kneejerk debates this topic usually brings up. An interesting read, too." I second that. Definitely one to read and think about.

Comments

seven

[s20451]

I don't usually respond to trolls, but I couldn't resist this one. Since the anti-IP movement is all about envy (I want my free MP3s! I want my free software!), I guess it's par for the course that IP should be all about greed.

Double standards

[caudron]

The author of that piece thinks it's right for people to be compensated for the fruits of their intellect (eg, he should be paid for that article he wrote) but when it runs contrary to his own moral position (getting AIDS medicine to Africa or genetically modifed grains to thrid world farmers) he says morality should win out.

Easy for him to say since his words will never be of humanitarian use, and therefore never subject to mandatory public release under his proposed 'structure'.

As much as he want to change the vocabulary used in the IP debates, in the end it is a boolean arguement: Either there is or there is not Intellectual Property. True or False.

Changing the vocabulary may make for nicer conversation, and may even help to achieve comprimise faster, but it is an obfustication of the reality of the issue.

Disclaimer: I am of the camp that says the answer is "False, there is no such thing as IP and any attempt to suggest otherwise is an illusion thrown up by corporate fatcats looking to stuff their wallets just a bit thicker at the expense of the public and of reality.

-Tom