[DMCA-Activists] David Reed on "Intellectual Property"

[Seth Johnson]

> http://www.satn.org/#90254497


Thursday, January 30, 2003 

DPR at 10:50 AM

The Intellectual Property Meme 

Every time you utter the words "intellectual property" you buy into the 
idea that all information bit patterns are or should be inherently
"owned"  by somebody.

The term "intellectual property" appeared first in the late twentieth 
century, first as a collective description for an unrelated set of
legal  traditions that arose when kings had the power to grant favors to
their  favorites, and which carried forward in the common law.

But during the twentieth century, the collective label has been 
reified. We actually are in danger of accepting the absurd idea that 
information should be property, ownable and exchangeable.

It won't be long before it is accepted that everything you learn from 
experience on the job is the "property" of your employer, just as they 
claim ownership of your notebooks, and every creative thought you have,
the  contents of every phone call you make (from your office), and
every  keystroke you type on your computer. When they can download your
brain,  and wipe it clean, you'll be required to when you change jobs.

You can help stop this. Don't ever use the words "intellectual 
property". You can say patents, copyrights, trademarks - those are more 
well-defined terms, and if Congress doesn't pull another Boner (er,
Bono),  they are limited and narrowly targeted at a balanced social
purpose. The  authors of the Constitution were wary of royal monopolies
like patents and  copyrights, but they compromised because there was a
reasonable social good  served by *limited* monopolies on things that
would pass into the public  domain.

But if you buy into the concept of "intellectual property" it turns
this  all around. Limited becomes the exception, not the norm. The
burden of  proof falls on the government to explain why property
ownership is  "limited". The government imposing a limitation becomes a
"taking" for  which the government is required to pay a price which is
calculated by  measuring the value that the "owner" would be able to
extract if they were  to "own" the "intellectual property" forever.

Society's being conned by a smart collection of devious and dangerous 
radicals. These guys pose as "conservatives", but in fact they are 
activists, redefining the whole notion of information. Changing it from
a  non-rivalrous good into a fully rivalrous good, by getting the
government  to synthesize new "intellectual property" concepts into
laws, and then  enforcing them.

This goes beyond "fair use". The attack of fair use in copyright is
only  a small part of this large radical movement.

It's time for those of us who aren't lawyers to fight back. Whenever
you  hear the term "intellectual property" you should feel like another
landmine  has been planted in this radical cultural jihad against your
mind.

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold
for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.