3 ms·
I think you're conflating two things. I'm a proponent of abolishing copyright and other so-called intellectual property. I do believe that information, once mad
by autarch 15y ago
I think you're conflating two things. I'm a proponent of abolishing copyright and other so-called intellectual property. I do believe that information, once made public, should be unrestricted.
This is orthogonal to the notion that private communications should stay private. What this article is really about is the definition of public vs private, and has very little to do with intellectual property issues.
- andrewflnr 15y agoSo your ideal legal system does not recognize ownership of information, just whether it is "public" or "private", and has legal protection for private information? I'm just curious how the no-IP theory goes. One thing that concerned me was protection for works in progress, where people need to send, say, manuscripts for a novel back and forth, or tracks for a CD.
- autarch 15y agoWe could have ownership of a sort without copyright. Copyright lets you tell other people what they can do with a copy of a work after it's released. I think the only right the law should protect is the right to release a work or not.
- andrewflnr 15y agoSo if I get my hands on a copy of a work that's not released, and start handing out copies, what happens to me?
- autarch 15y agoI dunno. Civil suit? Do I have to have all the answers? I just think that the system we have now is both broken and unethical.
- andrewflnr 15y agoNo, I'm just curious. I find the idea of abolishing intellectual property both hard to understand and fascinating, so I want to see how other people see it working.