[ExI] New IP thread
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Thu Jul 22 18:26:56 UTC 2010
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Colin D <colin.dodson at gmail.com> wrote:
> "" 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". ""
> There is a huge difference between privacy and IP. (Though I shudder to use
> the term 'IP'...) Copyrights and patents, now primarily within the corporate
> sphere serve far more to stifle progress than to foster it.
### Again, I can assure you from my own experience in the generation
of innovations that IP provides strong support for inventors. Claims
to the contrary tend to stem from lack of familiarity with the issue
or from varoius ulterior motives.
> mechanism was ever intended to do this. I wouldn't necessarily argue against
> Copyrights and Patents wholesale, but I would argue that, perhaps, these
> should be strictly limited to individuals (with legal liability), or when
> used in the corporate sphere, taxed extremely heavily to discourage hoarding
> of information, which is nearly invariably the case today.
### You appear not to be familiar with the issues under discussion. I
would like to challenge you with providing references to trustworthy,
preferably peer-reviewed publications claiming that "hoarding of
information" is "nearly invariably the case today". Your statement is
outrageously incompatible with my personal experience in this field.
More information about the extropy-chat