[ExI] intellectual property again

[Dan]

I lean toward the view, echoing Stephen Kinsella*, that intellectual property is not property at all. As such, it's not defensible via or consistent with libertarian property rights theory. (However, I would not use the charge of ideological unreliability against libertarians who take the contradictory position.)

Regards,

Dan

* Especially as given in his _Against Intellectual Property_. His site is at:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/

_Against Intellectual Property_ in HTML is at:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/against-intellectual-property/

----- Original Message ----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 12:07:04 PM
Subject: [ExI] intellectual property again

>...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
> 
> On 2 March 2010 20:07, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> > I can't.  I already signed non-disclosure agreements, and I always 
> > take those things damn seriously.
> 
> That's very bad... for your lawyer. :-)
> 
> --
> Stefano Vaj

My lawyer will have no problem making the next payment on her Mercedes.  We
just wrote a check for $44k, owwww, and we haven't even won the case yet.
More on that later, after the verdict comes in.  Actually my attitude
towards NDAs is more ethical than it is legal.  I have heard that NDAs can
usually be broken if challenged in court, but I wouldn't do that on other
grounds.  If I stole someone's intellectual property, I would tunnel under
the prison wall to break in, then I would refuse to leave.  Intellectual
property is property.

A few years ago here we had a good debate on copyleft.  I didn't participate
much, but read it all.  We had several of the
information-wants-to-be-freers, and almost as many
information-creators-want-to-be-paiders, with well thought out and well
written arguments on both sides.  Now that some time has passed, are there
any comments about that debate?  I started out more on the side of the
copyrighters and moved still further into their camp.

Is that topic worth revisiting?  Has anyone comments on that debete here a
few years ago?  New guys are welcome to jump in.

I will start it: I now think that society is justified in providing a legal
means of protecting information as property; in most cases current
intellectual property law is adequate and not overly restrictive.  I
recognize there are absurdities with protocol patenting, but I don't see a
better way.

Your turn. 

spike