[Discuss] Request for Comments: Digital DIY: Legal Challenges & Solutions Practised Report
blueback09 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 22 12:04:09 UTC 2016
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:47 PM, lkcl . <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Brennen Bearnes <bbearnes at gmail.com>
> > Various parties wrote:
> >> > 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.
> > It kind of seems like this rhetorical mode might not be doing us
> > any favors.
Because a legal standard that's so widely accepted it's roughly the same in
the vast majority of countries shouldn't be referred to as "slavery."
Basically every legal system in the world includes a concept of
"intellectual property" and most of them are remarkably similar,
particularly when compared to other common concepts.
Just the first example off the top of my head is intellectual property in
Saudi Arabia looks like intellectual property in most other countries.
Whereas they're still "not ready" for women to be allowed to drive.
If we want to be able to refer to something like oppression of an entire
gender as similar to slavery, we can't also refer to intellectual property
law as slavery. At best, it confuses the conversation. The wider the
acceptance of a particular compromise the higher the bar for hyperbole.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss