Re: [ox-en] The term "intellectual property"
- From: João Miguel Neves <joao silvaneves.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:56:28 +0000
Just my 2 cents:
I need a term to replace Intellectual Property. I've thought about
Knowledge Legislation. The main reasons are:
1) Intellectual Property has two very nasty effects: "intellectual" puts
the discussion at an esoteric level, "only for intellectuals" or, worst
than that, implies that it has been thought out; "property" claims that
it refers to something that can and should be owned and treated as
2) For me, not using intellectual property is not possible any more.
While I could separate copyright, patents and trademarks, that's ok.
When I have to deal with sui generis rights, like designs, databases,
personal information and others, it's becoming unbearable.
3) [This is the point I hope will raise discussion]. It does have
meaning. It's mechanisms are different and the reasonings behind them
used to be different (before "protection" became a mantra), but all of
them affect knowledge, in the way it can be transfered, the way it can
be published or used. This is the reason why I'm proposing Knowledge
Legislation as a term.
A Qui, 2003-10-30 às 11:03, Chris Croome escreveu:
There is a discussion going on on the WSIS, We Seize!,
prep-l list at the moment over the use of the term
"intellectual property" that has been started by RMS:
I seem to remember that Graham had some ideas about this
a while back, "monopoly rights"?
João Miguel Neves