[wilhelmtux-discussion] Re: World Summit on the Information Society - FSF at WSIS?

[Richard Stallman]

       I'm therefore also looking into the issue of Intellectual Property
       Rights (IPR) and Free Software.

It is a mistake even to speak of such an issue, because "intellectual
property" is a catch-all for several different laws which are more
different than similar.  It is impossible to think clearly about these
various issues if you think they are one single issue.

You can help educate people to think clearly about these various
issues by rejecting the term "intellectual property".  People need to
recognize first of all that these issues are different.  For more
explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.

For instance, "intellectual property" introduces confusion here:

    I also think there is a misconception between the role of intellectual
    property rights:  There is no balance between IPRs and public
    interest.  IPRs exist in order to ensure a balance between authors and
    the public interest.  We should stress that IPRs should only give
    authors enough incentive to continue producing; the public interest is
    the public domain (ie. no intellectual property) -- that is the real
    balance IPRs are trying to ensure.

Your ultimate conclusion is right, but there's confusion along the
way, and some of it comes from "IPR".

It is inaccurate to say that "IPR" has to do with authors.  For
instance, patents and trademarks generally have nothing to do with
authors.  Neither do trade secrets, or plant breeders' monopolies, or
various other kinds of "intellectual property".  Of all the various
laws lumped together as "intellectual property", only copyright gives
privileges to authors.  In the software field, patents are obstacles
for most authors.

The first step in introducing clarity into this topic is to stop using
the term "IPR", and call copyright "copyright".

Many people believe that copyright exists to ensure a balance between
authors and the public interest, and you will often hear that stated.
But that is a fundamental mistake--the first step in a series
of misinterpretations of copyright.

Copyright exists to serve the public interest, pure and simple.  It is
supposed to do this by encouraging writing.  The balance, if there is
one, is between the public benefit of encouraging publication and the
public benefit of freedom to copy and change works.

That's more or less the conclusion you arrived at.  In order to
present a consistent argument for that conclusion, it is important to
avoid stating other contradictory positions along the way.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
for a lengthy article about this series of errors.

    The draft only mentions Free Software as a means to "affordable
    access".  This misses the point completely!

This is typical "open source" thinking--looking at the issue in
shallow economic terms, and ignoring social and ethical aspects.


Judging by these statements, it looks like the WSIS process is bowing
down to the software and media corporations.  It's possible that this
results from a failure of the participants to understand these issues,
but I suspect there is more to it than that.  I suspect that the
megacorporations are actively exerting influence.  We cannot expect
much good to come out of the WSIS unless we can weaken their
influence.

Who are the people who wrote this text, and who approved it?  Why did
they do so?  Were they influenced by the software and media
industries, and if so, by what path?