Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
Editing Intellectual Property
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Contesting the Domain of Discourse about Intellectual "Property"== | ==Contesting the Domain of Discourse about Intellectual "Property"== | ||
Some of us feel disarmed and powerless when entering into discussions about intellectual "property | Some of us feel disarmed and powerless when entering into discussions about "intellectual" property, because a lot of the terminology is not neutral. The vocabulary used by the IP establishment is not neutral, and stakes out a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. | ||
This section is for developing alternative language, arguments and approaches to discussion about copyrighted materials, that is either more neutral, or more sympathetic to the movement for free content and free expression. | This section is for developing alternative language, arguments and approaches to discussion about copyrighted materials, that is either more neutral, or more sympathetic to the movement for free content and free expression. | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* IP discussions often revolve around "protecting" intellectual property. This immediately pits the haves versus the have-nots, and immediately takes the side of those who already have (a claim to) intellectual property. And yet the ethical justification for granting copyright is to encourage the production of creative works in society. Shouldn't society's default ethical stance be in favor of the have-nots, and directed at encouraging them to start creating works of cultural value? It seems that "fair use" (in education, in "sampling" works, in performing or enjoying it on a non-commercial basis) of copyrighted material by those who are not collecting copyright income (the have-nots) is a more basic way of advancing the underlying goal of encouraging cultural production. We need to shift the focus from protecting the (temporarily-granted monopoly) rights of the haves towards promoting new creation of intellectual works especially among the have-nots. | * IP discussions often revolve around "protecting" intellectual property. This immediately pits the haves versus the have-nots, and immediately takes the side of those who already have (a claim to) intellectual property. And yet the ethical justification for granting copyright is to encourage the production of creative works in society. Shouldn't society's default ethical stance be in favor of the have-nots, and directed at encouraging them to start creating works of cultural value? It seems that "fair use" (in education, in "sampling" works, in performing or enjoying it on a non-commercial basis) of copyrighted material by those who are not collecting copyright income (the have-nots) is a more basic way of advancing the underlying goal of encouraging cultural production. We need to shift the focus from protecting the (temporarily-granted monopoly) rights of the haves towards promoting new creation of intellectual works especially among the have-nots. | ||
==Cultural Commons Model vs. Property Model== | ==Cultural Commons Model vs. Property Model== |