Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 17:06:51 +0900

>>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

    rms> The term "intellectual property" grants that intuition [of a
    rms> "creator's right to possess"] a validity which I [...] do not
    rms> wish to grant it.

Fine!  That's what I've always considered the issue to be, and that's
why I'm willing to avoid gratuitous use of the term.  And furthermore,
deprecate the strong (though implicit) association of IP with natural
rights in the term "intellectual property rights."

	rms> What these laws have in common is mainly a matter of form
	rms> (and not even that applies to them all), not substance.

    I do not believe my eyes.  Richard Stallman denying that restriction
    of software freedom is an important matter of substance?

    rms> That is twisting my words.

Of course.  I admitted so *immediately*, did I not?  If you're going
to address the argument that followed, please do so.  If not, please
don't twist *my* words by quoting them out of context.

    rms> However, since you raise the question of how these laws
    rms> affect software freedom,

I didn't.  I merely pointed out that they do affect software freedom,
which is a useful generalization about intellectual property.



Footnotes: 
[1]  Because I don't believe that *any* transferable property is
rooted in a "human right to possess", and see real benefit in arguing
from the pure case of socially invented property (viz, IP) to the
general case.

-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory