Subject: Re: [arch-dev] universities struggling to avoid making money
From: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:51:22 -0700 (PDT)



	> Caving in to Microsoft on IP issues would not be socially beneficial,
	> IMO, but calling strong IP "legal theft" 

In the digital age, where information can flow freely, strong IP (if
"sufficiently strong") is legalized facist totalitarianism because
strong IP is just words on paper and nothing more unless it has the
support of a facist totalitarianist beaurocracy.

On one side, free software advocates have a number of business models
to offer, some of which are limping along, others of which exist only
in blue print -- our weakness is that we can't prove absolutely or
state definitively how these models will work out in the long run.

On the other side, strong IP advocates have been utterly unable to
show how strong-enough-for-them IP can avoid being legalized facist
totalitarianism.

Apparently, astoundingly, some people think that legalized facist
totalitarianism is a good idea, all of which reminds me of a coctail
party in 1936 at which we might find ourselves in a spicy little
debate about the doins that's afoot in europe and, anyway, did you
hear about that ghastly strike in Allentown (are we going to have to
solve these same *problems* here at home)?


	> But property, in the sense of "capital," is never about
	> compensation for effort, fair or otherwise.

Doesn't that really depend on how people use their tools?


-t