3 ms·
If you're against "intellectual property" then you shouldn't use that propaganda term. Refer to the specific legal protections at issue, like copyright, patent
by dublinben 13y ago
If you're against "intellectual property" then you shouldn't use that propaganda term. Refer to the specific legal protections at issue, like copyright, patents, or trademarks, because they are all have very different functions and purposes.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
- wdewind 13y agoThat's an interesting piece, thanks for sharing. I think from the perspective of "what existing pieces of culture can I use to create something new" IP is actually a useful bucket. From the perspective of people who have already created or are consuming that piece of culture, I agree that combining trademark with copyright and patents is not useful.
- burntsushi 13y agoCopyrights, patents and trademarks all share a single unifying assumption: ideas are things that can be owned. Since I disagree with that assumption, it makes sense to speak about "disagreeing with intellectual property" if IP is just a synonym for "a legal framework that uses violence to support laws that allow ideas to be owned."