[ExI] New IP thread

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 7/21/10, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
>> > Yes I am against what you are arguing for. Ultimately
>> its unrealistic
>> > anyways.... if I read your words I have copied them
>> into my neural net where
>> > they will continue to live on and affect future output
>> of mine.... have I
>> > just made an unauthorized derivative work by criticing
>> your emails? Will you
>> > seek to sue me and repossess portions of my brain? Or
>> have them erased
>> > perhaps?
>>
>> No, all my posts here are provided with the implicit
>> understanding
>> that copying them into your brain, computer, printouts,
>> etc., is
>> authorized. Reposting without attribution is not
>> authorized.
>> Commercial use is not authorized. Thinking about them is in
>> fact
>> warmly encouraged. These are the customary IP rights I
>> claim to my
>> posts.
>
> That's fine for you, but what about someone who makes posts
> and then tries to claim a far more restrictive IP licensing
> scheme?  For instance, that by reading these words you agree
> to become my slave for life (including any continuation on
> alternate neural substrates or post-cryogenic revival)?

### I am not dictating my own IP terms, merely articulating the
customary rights implicitly assumed on this and many other lists.
Persons who post here implicitly agree not to claim that reading their
posts is grounds for enslavement.

>
> If one is allowed to dictate one's own IP terms, that is a
> logical possibility.  Of course, as you note, one's thoughts
> are one's own, even when shared via any medium, and one
> should probably have some rights to them (depending on
> context).  The trick is to find a balance between these
> extremes.

### Indeed. That's what I am suggesting - unauthorized copying of
thoughts should be prohibited ... but of course voluntary disclosure
of thoughts in certain defined situations constitutes authorization
for various forms of copying, in accordance with whatever local rules
pertain the situation. So we have a general rule "no copies unless
allowed" and other rules saying "this voluntary act authorizes certain
copies" - the rules are congruent, and together they provide for a
stable system of exchange of ideas.

What IP-deniers say boils down to claiming that any act of disclosure
of information automatically authorizes copying, even if the
disclosure is explicitly accompanied by restrictions on use of the
information. They deny that voluntary participation in the exchange of
information may be accompanied by legitimate limitations on some
further uses of that informantion - but only when it suits them. When
they want to read somebody's book, see a movie or use an invention
without paying, it's "information must be free". Of course, if the
tables are turned, and somebody in real life misuses information
*they* provided, they will demand "privacy".

Rafal