| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: russell_-at-_flora.ottawa.on.ca (Russell McOrmond)
Date: 7 May 2000 12:27:33 -0400
This is a posting I made to the Green Party of Ontario discussion group.
This summer I am wanting to host a forum at the Green Party of Canada
conference <http://ottawa2000.flora.org/> on the topic "Towards a Green
Party Policy on Statutory Information Monopolies, otherwise known at
Intellectual Property".
For those interested, further links will be at:
http://russell.flora.org/work/open-green.html
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://russell.flora.org/work/>
http://www.flora.org/flora.admin.design/277 FLORA's future discussion tech.
http://www.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1637 Community radio going private?
http://www.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1640 If you really "Loved me"
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 12:23:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ottawa.on.ca>
To: gpo-forum@greenparty.on.ca
Subject: [Talk] Reponsibility and statutory monopolies.
Note: I'm not replying to this for Craigs benefit as we don't even have
basic language in common, but for the benefit of others to hear the other
side of this important issue.
As an amusing side commentary to bring us into this topic, I would like
to remind everyone that the very nature of the "Love Bug" virus (Really a
Trojan, but the media is calling it a Virus) getting so much media
attention is the centralization of information technology that statutory
information monopolies create. While this bug only affects Microsoft
Office (Well, those systems which have Visual Basic for Applications
installed, which means Office users on Win 95 and below or NT - Parts of
office come bundled with Windows 98 and Windows 2000) and can only
replicate itself off-site using Microsoft Outlook, people need to think
about how having a monopoly can create such a trivial target for
widespread attack.
http://www.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1640 If you really "Loved me"
http://www.flora.org/flora.mai-not/19372 Love Bug: The Conspiracy
Now, take yourself beyond computer software where there is realistically
only minor economic impacts and think of what this type of a "bug" would
do without biodiversity (Yes, patents/copyright by definition reduce
biodiversity) and with potentially other engineered genetic modifications
centralizing the global food system. If we allow this centralization of
information to continue, a future "Love bug" virus will be biological in
nature and instead of wiping out a few pictures and music files, could
wipe out millions of people.
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Craig wrote:
> Patents, as I mentioned in the other note, serve the purpose of centralizing
> *responsibility to create a common contract* in dealings with an invention -
This is false as there is no responsibility attached to statutory
information monopolies, or in fact any other thing we collectively are
told to call "property". If responsibility was attached, and revocation
of that government granted exclusivity when responsibilities were not
met was a basic part of the laws, then much of the social problems
associated with property would not exist. Most people don't even
recognize property as a government granted privilege (a privilege of the
few, enforced against the many by the government).
One by one the various forms of property, which in layman terms means
"exclusivity without responsibility" are being understood as being not in
our best interests. There are many forms of property from ownership of
Land, Animals, People and Ideas (And I believe they are illegitimate in
that order). Most people these days understand ownership of people
(Slavery) as a bad thing, and many Greens believe the irresponsible use of
Animals (Animal Rights people) is a bad thing. My discussion of Statutory
Information Monopolies
You once said we could not work on projects together because of my
"ideologies". It is funny how people with differing ideologies define
others as having them, and themself as not having them. The fact is that
every human being makes decisions based on their own particular
ideologies, and my unwillingness to work with people who promote
Copyright/Patents is no different than a Human Rights advocate not working
with slave owner or an Animal Rights advocate not working with a butcher.
Your belief that Patents can protect us from information reaching the
wrong hands is totally misguided, and has no basis in the reality of the
modern use of patents. Patents ensure that exactly the wrong people
(those with the most money, with our current economic system granting the
most money to the least trustworthy of the public good) have easy access
to the information, making the determination/development of "antidotes"
(Information that can counter the use of the harmful information) less
likely. Patents do not protect us - they are the very tool that makes
information technologies dangerous.
The types of technological signatures that you discuss would be
interesting, but you need to realize that it is patent law itself that
denies our ability as citizens to require this of technology users.
This government granted irresponsibility was even attempted to be used
in Microsoft's attempt to confuse the court with its anti-trust
violations, trying to suggest that copyright law overrides anti-trust
laws: http://www.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1614
"A big part of Microsoft's argument is a somewhat novel one: copyright
law. The company says that its exclusionary contracts with computer
makers are perfectly OK, since owners of copyright software -- such
as, say, Microsoft Windows -- can dispose of it as they see fit."
We have biotechnologists suggesting (and winning the political battle)
that the simple labeling of bioengeneered products cannot be allowed, and
you seem to believe that it would be possible to get the actual
modifications themselves 'signed'. I would love to hear where your belief
comes from, and I can't see the logic behind it.
> Statutory monopolies over intellectual property must come to be seen as part
> of the liability assignment problem, whether it is tax liability, royalties,
> or harms done.
You will of course note that there is no "property tax" on statutory
information monopolies, even though there are high social costs to this
legal structure. As it is we all pay out of our outdated income/profit
tax systems to pay for this monopoly which protects the very-rich against
everyone else.
The above sentence does suggest that maybe we do have one idea in
common, and that might be that part of the "Green Tax Shift" will be to
move some of the current income/profit tax onto property tax on
patents/copyright. As I have suggested elsewhere, I also believe that
part of the Green Tax shift would be to only grant R&D tax deductions when
the information comes out of copyright/patent protection-from-competition,
and not giving handouts to "property owners".
> The distinction between "intellectual" and other property will disappear as
> it becomes obvious that the real distinction is between "the right to use"
> and "the duty to clean up after".
Again, what you talk about is not property but stewardship. There is *NO
DUTIES* assigned to the disposition of property. Those of us who oppose
property are not opposed to exclusivity, we are opposed to the lack of
responsibility associated with it. If the legal structure mandated duties
associated with the exclusivity, then it would no longer be 'property' and
people like myself would no longer be opposing it.
Intellectual Monopolies are of course different in that they must have a
time limit. The documented purpose of Copyright/Patents is to give a
"head start" on marketing to the originator of an idea. How long of a
head-start is needed is totally dependent on the type of information and
the communications environment. Even though communications has been
growing at astronomical rates over the past hundred years which should
have prompted a lowering in the time associated with copyright/patents,
these statutes have instead been modified to increase the length.
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://russell.flora.org/work/>
http://www.flora.org/flora.admin.design/277 FLORA's future discussion tech.
http://www.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1637 Community radio going private?
http://www.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1640 If you really "Loved me"
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|