Eric Miller on Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:49:29 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Indigenous IPR |
re: intellectual property, I'm wondering about the interesting contrast between this thread and the recent file-sharing debates on Nettime. Specifically: we frequently read the argument that "information wants to be free" in regards to IP protected content from Western content producers and corporations. It's OK to take this content, the argument goes, because there is no direct harm to the IP stakeholders, and the dissemination of the information contributes to the greater good of society. This statement is therefore true: Though the IP stakeholders may lose out on direct revenue, they receive benefits through other channels connected to the improvement of society as a whole. There also appears to be a consensus that it is NOT OK for Western entities to leverage indigenous sources for IP, even though the same conditions apply: namely, that there is no harm done to the indigenous sources, and that the reuse and dissemination of the information gained is for the greater good of society. This statement is therefore NOT true: Though the IP stakeholders may lose out on direct revenue, they receive benefits through other channels connected to the improvement of society as a whole. And we don't seem to be talking about situations where a Western IP entity plucks a ready-to-go product from a Third World society...clearly, there's an ethical obligation there to compensate the source. The argument seems to be that if the raw material comes from an underprivileged source, they deserve compensation by virtue of proximity to the resource (regardless if they had knowledge of its potential usefulness). By contrast, a Western producer of intellectual goods has no real ownership right over their product, regardless of the effort required to produce. At a fundamental level, the unstated difference simply seems to be that one group has wealth and power and therefore doesn't deserve IP protection. The other group doesn't have wealth or power, therefore they do deserve IP protection. So how does this shake out? Or are we just redistributing wealth here? Eric # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net