[ExI] intellectual property again

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 18:19:47 UTC 2010


On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On 3/4/2010 10:10 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>>>  The short version:
>>>  We are increasingly and will eventually entirely*be*
>>>  information. If
>>>  we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose
>>>  ownership of ourselves.
>
>> ### I don't understand. Shouldn't it be "If we forbid the ownership of
>> information, and if we are information,  then we forbid the ownership
>> of ourselves."? Without IP we will have, among others, no defense
>> against unauthorized copying of us (i.e. making of slave copies).
>
> That was my thought also. "First they take away ownership of your work
> product, then they take away ownership of yourself." It really doesn't
> matter if they are plutocrats, gummints or Stalinist dictators who do it,
> it's always for the Greater Good. (The bogus "Think of the children!" plea.)
>
> Which seems to me a very different proposition from deciding by democratic
> means (if that's still possible and has any meaning nowadays) to allocate
> some of our wealth, effort, dedication, cleverness in common ways to
> maximize our well-being.

### I keep plugging for my atrociously long paean to polycentric legal
systems, see http://triviallyso.blogspot.com/2010/01/of-beating-hearts-part-2.html

Does it make sense to you?

Rafal



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list