Although I don't agree entirely, this is an excellent, in my opinion,
statement of your argument. Thanks for making this side of the issue clear
to us.
- Don DeBar

----------
> From: F. Leon Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CHOMSKY] Myths about intellectual property
> Date: Friday, June 06, 1997 10:11 AM
>
> Some myths about intellectual property
>
> Intellectual property is a hot-button issue these days, and for good
> reason. In the heat of debate, however, it can become easy for dogmatic
> assertions to stamp out complex truths. In order to fairly consider
> intellectual property, it is important that our discussions not be
clouded
> by misconceptions; for this reason, a number of false statements about
> intellectual property are listed and rebutted at this Web site:
>
> http://www.duke.edu/~eagle/anarchy/docs/ipmyths.html
>
> I would be most interested in hearing people opinions about what is said
> here.  I am not the author of the article.
>
> F. Leon
>
>
> Intellectual property is an ancient principle.
>
> Not true. Intellectual property is an explicitly modern notion, having
> made its debut quite recently. The first patent law was enacted in 1623,
> and the precursor of modern copyright - the Statute of Anne - came into
> being in 1710. These early laws were limited in scope and restricted to
> only a few types of information; the broader interperatation of these
> principles used today in the western world is quite modern, certain
> elements having been added only within the last few years.
>
> Intellectual property is recognized worldwide.
>
> As the US's recent standoff with China demonstrates, intellectual
property
> is not a concept which has worldwide acceptance. Indeed, a major foreign
> policy objective of the United States has been to force other nations to
> comply with its own intellectual property agenda - an unwelcome form of
> intellectual imperialism which is all too frequently ignored by watchdog
> groups.
>
> Without intellectual property, no one will produce original work.
>
> Given that intellectual property law made its debut in 1623, we may
> correctly consider any work produced before this time to dispell the
myth.
> Man created for millenia before the advent of intellectual property; he
> will create for many more millenia after it is abandoned.
>
> Intellectual property is necessary to create incentives for the
> production of original works.
>
> This intellectual property myth has become the mantra of IP supporters.
> Often repeated, never questioned, the idea that creativity depends on a
> government granted monopoly needs no justification in the minds of most
IP
> boosters. Sadly, however, they are mistaken: intellectual property
> "rights" are not essential to creation, and in some circumstances even
> deter it. Consider, for instance, the software industry. Free for years
> from the limitations of intellectual property, the industry flourished,
> becoming by all accounts one of the most creative of environments in the
> modern world. With the recent introduction of patent law into computing,
> however, many individual programmers live in fear of lawsuits from large
> corporations who claim "ownership" of techniques such as the
> scroll-buffer. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the creator!
> Intellectual property law, from its inception, has been about publishers
> and other powerful firms as much as it has been about creative
> individuals; the latter often find their interests poorly defended by IP.
>
> Even if people DID create works without intellectual property
> protections, the quality of these works would be substandard.
>
> Only if "Julius Caesar", Plutarch's "Lives", "The Last Supper", and
> Handel's "Messiah" are "substandard"! All of these, including such
pivotal
> creations as the Bible, the Koran, and the hundreds of Sutras were
created
> in a world without intellectual property. IP boosters claim that
weakening
> intellectual property law means giving up great literature, music, and
> art; in fact, history shows us that this is not the case.
>
> The "best" creators won't work without intellectual property
> protections.
>
> Once again, history proves this to be false. Shakespeare, Plato,
> Confucius, Hero, Chaucer, Handel, and many others of the finest names in
> world literature, music, art, and invention worked in an environment free
> of intellectual property restrictions. Clearly, genius does not require
> copyright to produce!
>
> To take away intellectual property rights is to deny creators the
> right to profit from their labors.
>
> This myth is based on the idea that the only way to make money off of
> creation is to "sell" the ideas which are produced. In fact, this is not
> true. Consulting, support, performance, service: these are all ways in
> which creators can make money off of their abilities without appealing to
> intellectual property rights. Even if there were no copyright, a band
> could still make money by charging for live performances, for instance;
an
> even better example is found in academia, where a great deal of idea
> production takes place without the ideas being "sold" to the universities
> which sponsor their creators. Removing intellectual property rights would
> not deny creators the right to profit from their labors; it would,
> however, allow all of society to share in the benefits of their work.
>
> Intellectual property follows directly from the notion of physical
> property.
>
> Physical property rights are derived from the basic fact that a physical
> object can't be in two places at once. In order to keep people from
> squabbling over material objects, we use a system of rights to say "who
> gets what". Information, however, differs from physical property in a
> number of ways, one of which being that it can be in many places at the
> same time. Let's say that Fred gives Barney an apple; after this, Fred no
> longer has the apple. If, on the other hand, Fred TELLS Barney about the
> apple, Fred STILL knows about the apple. Fred gave the information to
> Barney, but Fred still has it! Clearly, then, there is no need for Fred
> and Barney to squabble over who "owns" the information about the apple:
to
> do such would be to try to treat information like an object, an idea
which
> is clearly flawed.
>
>
>
> As the debate of over the future of intellectual property unfolds, it
will
> be more important than ever for participants, and bystanders, to have
good
> information concerning the nature of IP. By removing the myths and
> misconceptions which surround intellectual property, we can make better
> decisions as to its proper status in our society.
>
> This document should be considered public domain -- please distribute
> freely.