Re: Lessig on Property

Hartmut,

Free software fundamentalism refutes the term "intellectual property"
from double grounds:

- first, knowledge should be free to exchange and use, and as such,
 it should never be thought as an exclusive property of someone

- second, the legal schemes commonly referred to as "intellectual
property", have much differences, and have nothing to do with
intelligence or the good connotations commonly attached to property.

I understand and respect the framework you and Mr. Lessig think about
copyright, but I cannot agree with the premise that barring someone from
knowledge can ever be acceptable.

It is an ideological question, which means we have no way to decide with
logical reasoning. Hence it is fruitless to try to convince each other
while we are in the same side of the barricade.

I would like to coin "knowledge monopoly" instead of "intellectual
property".

And yes, Mr. Lessig is a brilliant mind, and he does a much needed
quest.

2005-06-12, v keltez=E9ssel 23.19-kor PILCH Hartmut ezt =EDrta:
> A while ago I had some public discussions with RMS in which I said
> there was nothing wrong with the notion of "intellectual property" and
> that it could indeed be an enlightening notion if put into the proper
> context.  I also said that software patents should be seen as a
> dysfunctional (non-performant) set of rules for turning intellectual
> achievements into (virtual) property objects.
>=20
> I'm now quite happy to see that Lawrence Lessig uses the same
> analytical framework as I (and some people at FFII) use:
[]
> It would be good if FSFE could update their rhetoric to this framework
> (instead of the http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
> framework).