Slashdot Mirror
A Replacement Term for 'Intellectual Property'?
femto asks: "Every time I read the words 'intellectual property', I get peeved off. It is an oxymoron. A term loaded with invalid assumptions. To even use such words is an admission that intellect can be owned and controlled like a car, clothing or other thing made of atoms. Can anyone propose a replacement for the words 'Intellectual Property'? Something that implies intellect cannot be owned. Something that implies [what Jefferson once said]: 'He who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' Once we have this term, we need to get it accepted. Use it in publications. Cite these publications to get it in dictionaries. Get the term into everyday conversation and writing. So far, the best I have come up with is 'Intellectual Controls'. Can Slashdot come up with something better?"
This seems about the silliest thing I have ever heard. The term is a narrowly defined legal term. Changing a term does not ipso facto change the underlying discussion. Call it "Ice Cream Dog" and you would still be talking about ownership of those things which issue from your intellect and which you should have a right to do with as you see fit. Please stop trying to "sanitize" the language and deal with the actual problems, not get caught up in whatever the term de vogue might be.
I don't think "intellectual controls" works well. "Intellectual property" is an intentionally dishonest term but only half the problem is with "property." Substitute your least favored pop culture expellers for my examples but I fail to see the "intellectual" property in the music of Britney Spears or a song like "I want to sex you up" by Five. If the assertion that much of what goes by the name of "intellectual property" is "property" is dishonest than the claim that it is "intellectual" is pretentious. Browse over to http://autopr0n.com and tell me if you think those copyrighted images are appealing to your intellect (they may be appealing but they are aimed at a different organ).
Stallman is mostly right when he rails against the conflation of copyright, patent and trademark law into "intellectual property." Right insofar as it is at best sloppy thinking to lump things together that are so dissimilar. Only partially right because the "intellectual property" field also includes things like publicity rights, right to privacy and moral rights. So if it isn't "intellectual property" or intellectual controls", what then? The most accurate term I can think of to cover most of this ground is "expression monopoly."
What copyright, patent and trademark have in common is that they all regulate who can use the expression of certain ideas. Copyright law assigns rights to who can make literal or derivative copies of a specific expression. Patents cover who can express an idea regardless of the the specific form. Trademarks are about who can use specific expressions in a commercial context.
The common denominator is the monopoly power granted by the government.* There are assertions in US law that patents aren't monopolies but it is safe to regard those claims as dishonest semantics (unless arguing before the dishonest judges who make the claims).
Even "expression monopoly" doesn't cover the ground perfectly. For example, moral rights have more to do with mandated expression rather than monopolized ones.
* For those (Americans) who insist on the "property" part of intellectual property, reread the copyright and trademark clause of the Constitution and tell us if there is any reason that Congress must grant authors a monopoly. I can see why the just compensation clause would prevent Congress from nullifying existing copyrights and patents but it would not be unconstitutional for the government could stop issuing new ones tomorrow. Unlike real property, "intellectual property" is a creation of the state and one which it is under no obligation to go on creating. When the government grants something that it is not obliged to, it is generally described as a privilege rather than a right.
Amazing. You make an excellent case for saying intellectual products , and then without even noticing, you immediately identify product = property .
"Area of the unit sphere = 4 \pi" is a product of Archimedes' intellect. Is it ipso facto "property", with all the connotations of the word in our ambiant ideology?
(Example of such connotations: trespassing your neighbor's property is a crime; in Swiss culture it is a right.)
So no, "Area = 4\pi" is not Archimedes' property. But he has an inalienable right to it, namely to be recognized as the author. What the French legal tradition calls Author's right (droit d'auteur).
Different name, different connotations. Thus for instance, being inalienably yours the author's right cannot be sold in French law. Compare the U.S., where the first thing publishers demand of aspiring songwriters is to sell them the copyright as part of the deal.
Which of course, is the very mechanism through which untalented businessmen end up thinking they own 20th century culture, or UNIX.
Note that this leaves open the question of what material rewards law may, or may not, be attached to Author's right. Certainly one may argue for a mechanism to compensate authors when their (recent) intellectual products are traded in books. Indeed French law has something to this effect.
But to immediately declare it's going to be treated as property, as part of the very grammar, is trumping the cards from the get go.
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Author's rights it is. (PS: it's the legal Brazilian term to copyrights: "Direito Autoral")
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Work protected by a temporary monopoly.
I think this conveys the idea far better than "Copyright" After all, could you see Disney lobbying the government on this?
"So, you would like your government-granted temporary monopoly extended to 150 years? And how does this fit with the word temporary?"
A latent existence
I disagree. As a scientest, I do so have "intellectual property". It doesn't even have to be in the legal sense of the term. There are things I do that no one else does. They are my intellectual property, the property of my intellect.
I disagree with you in turn. As a scientist, I am constantly disgusted by the persistent belief among individuals in academics that they are the first people to have thought of something.
Sometimes this is true, sure. But it's rare. The vast majority of the time, what happens is, numerous people have thought of something simultaneously, and race to finish the paper. So it's a matter of who gets something done most quickly, not whose idea it is. Frequently this depends on factors having nothing to do with intellectual capacity, but rather, access to facilities, money, or other resources.
Other times, one person alone pursues an idea that others have also thought of because no one else really is interested in the idea.
And even in cases that aren't thought of by others, often times the work is truly collaborative. This is why there are such disputes over author order.
I love science. But one thing I can't stand--not the only thing, but something that repeatedly causes me to consider a career in, say, winemaking--is the illusion that something you have thought of has never been thought of before.
And even if it were the case that something I have thought of truly hasn't been thought of before, would I consider it my intellectual property? No way. I'm supposed to be making discoveries to the benefit of others. The scientific process, with its emphasis on replication, is one of the first "open" processes, and to make every discovery proprietary would destroy it.
"Copyright" is a propaganda term for our opponents, since rights are seen as good things. But copyrights aren't rights; copyright doesn't mean the right to make copies, it means the right to prevent others from making copies, so copy-restriction or copy-monopoly are more accurate terms.
If we want to stop our opponents benefitting from these propaganda words, we'd better use words that more accurately reflect the monopolistic nature of so-called copyright and other similar concepts such as patents:
How do other cultures define IP?
American Indian tribes have many many different approaches to intellectual property. Along much of the Northwest Coast stories and artistic images are considered to be associated with specific clans and there are sanctions for use without permission. A family has rights to the myths and images that define them as a family. These are the same tribes that had the potlatch - an institutional way of ensuring that property was not hoarded.
Another approach was that of Chief Joseph, who although he fought to protect the land of his tribe still denied that his tribe "owned" that land or that anyone could "own" land. He prefered to say that he and his tribe had *guardianship* of the land.
So perhpas we could think about IG instead of IP, talk about the guardianship of ideas that *belong to everyone*. This allows for protection of author's rights -- they are guarding the ideas that they put forth and no one should be able to deny that the author is the guardian of their own work or that someone else should be able to mangle the work and distribute it as though from the original author. But it also allows for treating human progress as the property of all and provides a basis for insisting that laws protecting guardianship do not become a form of intellectual hoarding.
If you look at History you will find many examples of information that was lost precisely because it was kept proprietary. That was the main purpose of the medieval guilds, as well as clerics and numerous secret societies. It is why secrets like how to make Damascus Steel were lost. It is a better argument for intellectual freedom to point out how the free flow of information has bettered our world, for example the Gutenberg Bible and medical knowledge, than to say, incorrectly, that it was always like that before and now we are being oppressed.
Second, by what spade do you call the conglomeration of concepts known individually as copyright, patent, trademark, servicemark, and tradename? I think this was the original question.
1) Whether or not it has commercial value, I don't believe the commercial is the point here(we give patents, trademarks, etc...) to encourage people to innovate for the greater good.
2) It enhances the idea that whatever the person did, was think of it first, and should benefit the most from it... As a reward for being the first
3) It reduces the emphasis on those ideas being sellable, hoardable property... The RIAA(or any other lawyer-box) wouldn't be so able to stifle other's innovations if it couldn't hoard the innovations of others, but had to invent them first. It's fine for an author to make millions from writing a book, or a singer for doing the same thing for their musical qualities and performance on stage, but letting them sell it? I can see a foundation as an heir to their copyrights(one per artist) as one thing... but I certainly object to commercial companies of any kind buying up rights left and right, and reducing distribution... Those II either artistic or technical, are limited rights given to encourage contribution to the public domain. Those limited rights should default after some period, to all of us. And yes, that means we should already own Mickey.
The term 'intellectual property' is merely that - a term. The term 'white paper' isn't too accurate either - the documents are usually electronic and aren't entirely white. The purpose of language is to communicate - if people know what you mean when you use certain words, then the purpose is fulfilled.
'Q' is for Dr. Tran
I suggest "intellectual content", to talk about bits and ideas, since it doesn't carry any hidden notions of control or ownership.
>;k
For legal regimes that restrict the use of information in the manner than copyright and patent do, I prefer "information monopoly", though "expression monopoly" suggested by others here is perhaps even better.
If we are referring to the existing state of play, then using the term Intellectual Property is the correct term - whether we like it or not, the existing laws and statutes make it clear that copyrights, trademarks, patents, design rights, and so on are indeed intangible property rights. The subject matter is a sort of property, and the mechanisms confer rights.
To look to a brave new future, then choose a term that is backed by a new framework or doctrine. It seems to me that for all the complaints about the existing IP system, there has been no tangible alternative put forward.
Trade secret law has more teeth than it used to. It's now possible to make trade secret claims against third parties, which is new.
The DMCA created new kinds of property rights that previously didn't exist, leading to wierd results like the ink cartridge compatibility ruling.
There are also "proprietary rights in drug and agricultural chemical safety data", to prevent generic drug makers from getting approval for drugs using clinical testing data supplied by the original drug developer to get Government approval. This is in addition to patent protection. It's in the TRIPS agreement, so every country in the WTO has to implement this or the US stomps on them.