4 ms·

Stallman understands better than most the true nature of wealth and power. Concentrated wealth (in the hands of either individuals or corporations) becomes obse

Stallman understands better than most the true nature of wealth and power. Concentrated wealth (in the hands of either individuals or corporations) becomes obsessed with maintaining the concentration of wealth. The most straight-forward way to do this is to never actually sell anything, but rather to collect rent on it. However, the right to collect rent is a legal right that must be enforced by the state (or by force of arms, otherwise). Stallman's focus on copyright law and intellectual property law is focused on precisely the mechanism by which our society grants rent-collection privileges to concentrated wealth. His core principle is that we must proactively ensure that concentrated wealth is not permitted to collect rent on EVERYTHING in the world, or else we will all be made their serfs forever.

jordigh 12y ago
> Stallman's focus on copyright law and intellectual property law Channeling Stallman here, there's no such thing as "intellectual property law". There are a bunch of laws that work in very different ways, evolved under different circumstances, and have different purposes. Copyrights are for ensuring authors retain economic and/or moral rights on their work, patents are so that inventors will disclose their inventions instead of keeping them as trade secrets, and trademarks are so that consumers don't get duped into buying the wrong product. There are other sets of laws that have other purposes and histories, such as regional designation or shipwright designs. Lumping them all together as "intellectual property" promotes oversimplication and confusion.
- brrt 12y ago
  Stallman himself is very well aware of this issue and has written about it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
  - pdx 12y ago
    That's why he said "channeling Stallman"
    - erikpukinskis 12y ago
      He?
      - scintill76 12y ago
        Sigh, I'm all for calling people "she" if they desire, but this feels like a pointless comment. Do you know that the person being referred to (user "jordigh") would prefer to be called something other than "he"? Do you know whether or not the person you're replying to has done the research on which word to use? If you don't know, you're wasting our time with snarky but baseless "PC" attitude. At least put in a few more keystrokes to actually tell us what you'd like to happen here; if other people agree, maybe it will happen. If you do know something, then tell us what it is, don't expect mind-reading. Apologies if I've misread your meaning. I expect one-word posts are especially susceptible to that...
        jordigh 12y ago
        As the person whose gender was in question, I appreciate the doubt. I don't think you had any reason to believe that I was male, and male should not be the default gender.
        Spittie 12y ago
        Your name is right in your profile, so pdx could have easily got your gender from it. Maybe pdx even opened your site, where you have a photo clearly showing your gender. It's also possible that English is not pdx mother tongue, maybe pdx tongue is one of those where the male pronoun is used to refer to people when the sex is unknown. Also, while it's usage as this has been fading, "he" is defined as "Used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex" in many dictionaries, and someone could have been tough that in school (I have been).
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        12y ago
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  And arguing endlessly about the language to use when it's not germane to the discussion is an ages-old rhetorical technique to attempt to frame the debate. Stallman might love freedom, but I suspect he loves winning arguments by being "clever" even more.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Actually, Stallman here is pointing out that the term "intellectual property" is an example of this "age-old rhetorical technique". Ditto for calling piracy "theft". It is very important what language we use because it determines the thoughts and emotions we have.
  - metaphorm 12y ago
    I don't mind the discussion of language semantics. I used the blanket term "intellectual property law" as a short hand, because I didn't want to address the several different ideas and laws that it covers individually, due to time constraints basically. However, its absolutely correct that it is really a crude blanket term that lacks precision and deals with several different things that are thematically linked, but quite separate in reality. its not bad for someone to expand on a point I've made with those additional details. it adds to the discussion, I think.

jordigh 12y ago

> Stallman's focus on copyright law and intellectual property law Channeling Stallman here, there's no such thing as "intellectual property law". There are a bunch of laws that work in very different ways, evolved under different circumstances, and have different purposes. Copyrights are for ensuring authors retain economic and/or moral rights on their work, patents are so that inventors will disclose their inventions instead of keeping them as trade secrets, and trademarks are so that consumers don't get duped into buying the wrong product. There are other sets of laws that have other purposes and histories, such as regional designation or shipwright designs. Lumping them all together as "intellectual property" promotes oversimplication and confusion.

brrt 12y ago
Stallman himself is very well aware of this issue and has written about it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
- pdx 12y ago
  That's why he said "channeling Stallman"
  - erikpukinskis 12y ago
    He?
    - scintill76 12y ago
      Sigh, I'm all for calling people "she" if they desire, but this feels like a pointless comment. Do you know that the person being referred to (user "jordigh") would prefer to be called something other than "he"? Do you know whether or not the person you're replying to has done the research on which word to use? If you don't know, you're wasting our time with snarky but baseless "PC" attitude. At least put in a few more keystrokes to actually tell us what you'd like to happen here; if other people agree, maybe it will happen. If you do know something, then tell us what it is, don't expect mind-reading. Apologies if I've misread your meaning. I expect one-word posts are especially susceptible to that...
      - jordigh 12y ago
        As the person whose gender was in question, I appreciate the doubt. I don't think you had any reason to believe that I was male, and male should not be the default gender.
        Spittie 12y ago
        Your name is right in your profile, so pdx could have easily got your gender from it. Maybe pdx even opened your site, where you have a photo clearly showing your gender. It's also possible that English is not pdx mother tongue, maybe pdx tongue is one of those where the male pronoun is used to refer to people when the sex is unknown. Also, while it's usage as this has been fading, "he" is defined as "Used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex" in many dictionaries, and someone could have been tough that in school (I have been).
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        12y ago
oldmanjay 12y ago
And arguing endlessly about the language to use when it's not germane to the discussion is an ages-old rhetorical technique to attempt to frame the debate. Stallman might love freedom, but I suspect he loves winning arguments by being "clever" even more.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Actually, Stallman here is pointing out that the term "intellectual property" is an example of this "age-old rhetorical technique". Ditto for calling piracy "theft". It is very important what language we use because it determines the thoughts and emotions we have.
- metaphorm 12y ago
  I don't mind the discussion of language semantics. I used the blanket term "intellectual property law" as a short hand, because I didn't want to address the several different ideas and laws that it covers individually, due to time constraints basically. However, its absolutely correct that it is really a crude blanket term that lacks precision and deals with several different things that are thematically linked, but quite separate in reality. its not bad for someone to expand on a point I've made with those additional details. it adds to the discussion, I think.