[Discuss] Request for Comments: Digital DIY: Legal Challenges & Solutions Practised Report

[Antoine C.]

Hi Luke.
Thank you for your return.
I agree with you. What you write is correct.
But the purpose is not to move from the law to how our heart interprete
it, but to stay at the law level. And the law in my country is
ab-so-lu-tly different from "copyright". As in the culture of my friends
of islands of south pacific.
Copyright is a legal term. This term does not exist in some country. The
increase of copyleft, increases also the copyright domination. In my
country the term is "intellectual property", and it is deeply graved in
our culture. If you come with a "copyright" term, some people will say
"encore ces putains d'ricains qui viennent nous faire chier !!!", and it
is not good, it is not peaceful. Respecting local culture is very
important, including their legal terms and deep legal history. If not,
people could turn agressive, repulsive, or, a dominant position could
appear.
So the term copyright, whatever the 3.1. sections takes an "s" in order
to indicate that there are different "copyright", is not correct because
it is like it erases all other rights only because the copyright has a
dominant position.
Anyway, what you "say" is correct, and I respect it.
Love and Peace,
Freely,
Antoine C.

Le 21/09/2016 15:49, lkcl . a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Antoine C.
> <smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Wouter.
>>
>> What a job ! Bravo ! I've started to read.
>>
>> 1. The pdf format is not really easy to read, because of its low quality
>>
>> 2. Alert:
>> Please, please, please, do not call you 3.1. section "copyright",
>> please, oh please, let stop this, please really please Wouter, not for a
>> european paper, please please please Wouter.
>> Please find an other term like "right of authorship", or "right of
>> intellectual property",
> NO.  the concept of "intelligence as property" is both fake,
> misleading, and utterly arrogant.  how DARE you claim that you can
> ENSLAVE ME through OWNERSHIP of the intelligence within MY mind that
> is my BIRTHRIGHT.
>
> the phrase is incredibly insidious and it makes me extremely angry to
> hear people even use it without thinking what it means, or realising
> that they are propagating, endorsing and advocating a form of slavery.
>
> if you would prefer a more neutral explanation (not even dr stallman
> recognises that it is a form of enslavement), i recommend searching
> for dr stallman's words on the matter:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=stallman+intellectual+property
>
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/boldrin-levine.en.html
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
>
> his main argument is that it is insidious and a deliberate choice to
> get people to think of intelligence as property, because once it is
> considered in people's minds to be property, the usual arguments which
> apply to *REAL* property may then be applied... in the same way that
> "freedom fighters" are viewed as being "terrorists" depending on which
> side of the fence you happen to be.
>
> so no.  please STOP using the phrase "intellectual property".  in
> doing so you lose all and any ability to fight off the insidious
> entrapment and enslavement inherent in the phrase.
>
> l.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss