|
Size: 6368
Comment:
|
← Revision 14 as of 2009-05-30 23:34:56 ⇥
Size: 6101
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 2: | Line 2: |
| Horses bite and kick to each other in order to get food. Five minutes later they stand nibbling and caressing each other's necks. Wolves tear their prey apart and wound congeners which come too near. However the hunting to that prey is a common and social act. Apparently egoism and social behaviour do not exclude each other. Apparently animals have a feeling of property when it comes to material matter such as food and territory. The animal type human used to share its food loyally with tribe members. In times of shortage you could only survive by violently defending properties such as your hut and food. Property is a primary condition for humans and animals to survive. Today property is still the answer on the problem of scarcity; cars, houses, etc. are not unrestricted available (as a joke it is said that only air is not scarce). | Horses bite and kick each other in order to get food. Five minutes later they stand nibbling and caressing each other's necks. Wolves tear their prey apart and wound congeners coming too close. However the hunting for that prey is a common and social act. Apparently egoism and social behavior do not exclude each other. Apparently animals have a feeling of property when it comes to material matter such as food and territory. The animal type human used to share its food loyally with tribe members. In times of shortage you could only survive by violently defending properties such as your hut and food. Property is a primary condition for humans and animals to survive. Today property is still the answer for the problem of scarcity; cars, houses, etc. are not unrestricted available (as a joke it is said that only air is not scarce). |
| Line 5: | Line 5: |
| Als we hier Darwin's stelling: "survival of the fittest by natural selection" op los laten dan betekent dit dat individuen met een sterk sociaal gedrag in combinatie met een groot ontwikkeld gevoel voor eigendom meer kans hebben om te overleven en dus een grotere kans hebben om hun genen met die eigenschappen door te geven aan een volgende generatie. Met andere woorden: | If we launch Darwin's proposition "survival of the fittest by natural selection" on this we can conclude that individuals with a strong social behaviour in combination with a developed feeling of property have a bigger chance to survive and - as a result - have a bigger chance to pass their genes with those properties to a next generation. In other words: |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
| '''De evolutie heeft op Darwinistische wijze een sterk ontwikkeld gevoel van eigendom in onze genen geprogrammeerd.''' | '''Evolution has programmed a strong developed feeling of property in our genes in a Darwinistic way.''' |
| Line 9: | Line 9: |
| Gevoel en rede gaan vaak niet samen en dat is ook bij gevoelens van eigendom van toepassing. | Now feeling and common sense don't go along often which is also the case for our feelings of property. |
| Line 12: | Line 12: |
| Stel je voor dat je je tuinhekje op een ingenieuze manier hebt voorzien van veren die de deur automagisch sluiten. Een maand later zie je dat je buurman jouw idee, noem het uitvinding, heeft gekopieerd en weer een maand later zijn alle tuinhekjes in de stad voorzien van veren. Op dat moment zeg je boos: "ze hebben mijn idee gestolen!". Die emotie is begrijpelijk maar is de beschuldiging terecht? "Mijn idee" betekent "van mij", "het is mijn eigendom". Eigendom? Niemand mag er aan komen? Volledig beschikkingsrecht? Nee, gelukkig niet, want nu heeft de hele stad voordeel van jouw goede idee, de gemeenschap gaat erop vooruit door "jouw" idee te kopieeren.}}} Gevoel van eigendom is een instinct om te overleven, maar wij zijn ons daar niet van bewust (zoals met instincten gebruikelijk is). Dat weerhoudt ons ervan om onszelf een kritische vraag te stellen: kan een idee eigenlijk wel een eigendom zijn? Juridisch wordt eigendom omschreven als een recht om volledig te kunnen beschikken over een goed. Het antwoord is dus nee, een idee is immers geen goed! |
Suppose you have applied springs to your small garden gate with "the touch of a genius" that closes the door automagically. After a month you notice that your neighbor copied your idea - call it an invention - and another month later all garden gates in the city are provided with springs. At that moment you may become angry and start saying: "they have stolen my idea!". That emotion is understandable but is the accusation justified? "My idea" means "mine", "it is my property". Property? Nobody may touch it? Complete right to do with it whatever you want to? No, fortunately not, now the complete city benefits your great idea, the community is in progression by copying "your" idea.}}} The emotion of property is an instinct to survive but we are not aware of it (as is usual with instincts). That keeps us from asking ourself a critical question: can an idea be a property? Legally property is defined as a right to do with a good whatever you want to do with it. So the answer is no, an idea is not a good! |
| Line 15: | Line 16: |
| '''De basis van onze huidige welvaart is kennis die vrij toegankelijk en toepasbaar is opdat het zoveel mogelijk mensen en organisaties kan dienen. Vrijheid van informatie bevordert eerlijke concurrentie en daarmee de stimulans om onderzoek en ontwikkeling te plegen en is de sleutel tot de verdere ontwikkeling van de mensheid.''' | '''The base of our current prosperity is ''''''freely accessible and applicable ''''''knowledge in order to serve as many people and organizations ''''''as possible''''''. Freedom of information promotes true competition and as a result it stimulates research and development and is the key to the further development of humanity.''' |
| Line 17: | Line 18: |
| Dat is ook de reden waarom de wetgever creaties van de geest zoals uitvindingen (een idee) nooit heeft willen zien als een echt eigendom zoals een huis of een auto (een goed). | This is also the reason why the legislator never wanted to see creations of the mind - such as inventions (an idea) - as a real property like a house or a car (goods). |
| Line 19: | Line 20: |
| = En "intellectueel eigendom" dan? = Het mag duidelijk zijn dat "intellectueel eigendom" een foutieve en misleidende term is: geestelijke creaties zijn immers geen stoffelijke goederen met het bijbehorende volledige beschikkingsrecht. |
= And how about "intellectual property"? = It may be clear that "intellectual property" is a false and misleading term: mental creations are no material goods with the associated right to do with it whatever you want. |
| Line 22: | Line 23: |
| De wetgever heeft wel auteursrecht en octrooirecht geintroduceerd voor geestelijke creaties en die rechten hebben zonder meer enkele kenmerken van eigendom maar - ten overvloede - het is geen echt eigendomsrecht zoals bij een goed. Daarom heeft een goede jurist bij de term "intellectueel eigendom" een heel ander gevoel dan de uitvinder van het verende tuinhekje die het voorgaande niet gelezen heeft: de arme ziel laat zijn instinct hem dicteren dat het idee zijn eigendom is. | However the legislator introduced copyright and patent right for mental creations and those rights do share some characteristics of property but again it is not true property right as with goods. For this reason a good lawyer interprets "intellectual property" in a complete different way then the inventor of the self closing garden gate who did not read the previous: the poor soul lets his instinct dictate him that the idea is real property. |
| Line 24: | Line 25: |
| ''quote schrijver: "Ik spreek hier bewust van goede jurist want in de Brusselse gangen heb ik gesprekken gevoerd met politieke medewerkers met een juridische achtergrond die totaal geen benul van het verschil tussen eigendomsrechten en exclusierechten hebben maar wel uitermate open blijken te staan voor de onzin die lobbyisten hun in de maag splitsen."'' | ''quote writer: "I intentionally talk about a 'good lawyer' because in Brussels I have held conversations with political assistants with a legal background without the slightest awareness of the difference between property rights and exclusion rights and being very open minded towards the bull shit fomated by certain lobbyists" '' |
| Line 26: | Line 27: |
| Het is dus beter om over auteurs-, octrooi-, merkenrecht, enz. te spreken i.p.v. over "intellectueel eigendom". Ze moeten gezien worden als exclusie- of uitsluitrechten. Het is goed om te zien dat binnen de VN er een stroming op gang is gekomen die bewust de term "intellectueel eigendom" niet meer bezigt en het zou fijn zijn als die vonk ook over zou slaan naar overheden. Maar er is nog een belangrijke reden: binnen onze maatschappij zijn er belangengroeperingen als BSA, Microsoft, Philips, Sena, Bumastemra en Brein die bewust proberen dat gevoel van eigendom van geestelijke creaties de betekenis te geven van eigendom van echte goederen. Alleen zo kunnen ze klagen dat "goederen" als software, muziek en films ook echt gestolen worden als ze gedownload worden door. Ze sparen kosten nog moeite om bij politici en ambtenaren de deur plat te lopen en zijn succesvol daarin. In de VS loopt het de spuigaten uit en Europa moet oppassen dat het niet afglijdt in dezelfde richting. | So it is better to speak about copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. instead of "intellectual property". They must be interpreted as exclusion rights. It is good to see a trend inside the UN where people omit the term "intellectual property" and it would be nice if that spark would enlight governments to do the some thing. But there is still another important reason: within our society interest groups such as BSA, Microsoft, Philips and RIAA try to give mental creations the same meaning as physical and goods. Only this way they can complain that "goods" such as software, music and films are really stolen when they are downloaded. They spend millions and do everything they can to brain wash politicians and civil servants and they are successfully. In the US the shit hits the fan and Europe should watch out not slide down in the same direction. |
| Line 29: | Line 30: |
| Een Noorse krant schreef het volgende: de straf voor het distribueren van kinderporno is 7 jaar terwijl inbreuk maken op auteursrecht 10 jaar is onder de voorgestelde nieuwe Digital Millenium Copyright Act van 2006. De maximale boete voor het dumpen van chemisch afval is $27.500 per dag versus $500.000 per geval als het gaat om inbreuk op auteursrecht. The Inquirer schreef dat als je Graig David's CD kopieert je 10 jaar krijgt, maar als je hem op zijn gezicht slaat en verder verbouwt zodat hij zeven dagen in coma ligt dan krijg je uiteindelijk maar 6 jaar.}}} = Samenvatting: = De term "intellectueel eigendom" is een misleidende term en mag gezien worden als een PR-actie van groeperingen binnen onze samenleving die er belang bij hebben een vals gevoel van eigendom te stimuleren bij niet stoffelijke zaken als muziek, software, enzovoorts. Het is beter om te spreken over octrooirechten, auteursrecht, etc. of de verzamelterm exclusierechten te hanteren. |
A Norwegian newspaper wrote the following: the sentence for distributing child pornography is 7 years whereas violation on copyright is 10 years is under the proposed new Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2006. The maximum fine for dumping chemical waste is $27.500 per day versus $500.000 by case if it concerns breach of copyright. The Inquirer wrote that if you copy Graig David's CD you get 10 years, but if you beat him in his face and do some further rebuilding so he stays in coma for seven days you end up with only 6 years in prison. }}} = Summary: = The term "intellectual property" is a misleading term and may be considered as a PR action of groups inside our society with an interest of stimulating a false feeling of property when it comes to non physical things like music, software, etc... It is better to speak of patent rights, copyright, etc. or using the generic term exclusion rights. |
| Line 34: | Line 36: |
| Auteurs- en octrooirecht zijn resp. als peper en zout. Op vrije software is het ronduit ranzig, een teveel aan peper en zout is op de meeste gerechten niet lekker en verstandige mensen eten zoutarm. | Copyright and patents are respectively as pepper and salt. On free software it is simply rancid, a surplus of pepper and salt tastes not nice on most dishes and smart people eat low-salt. |
| Line 36: | Line 39: |
| English: Property | Dutch: [[Eigendom]] A short addition can be found at [[Intellectual Property]] |
Social versus egoism
Horses bite and kick each other in order to get food. Five minutes later they stand nibbling and caressing each other's necks. Wolves tear their prey apart and wound congeners coming too close. However the hunting for that prey is a common and social act. Apparently egoism and social behavior do not exclude each other. Apparently animals have a feeling of property when it comes to material matter such as food and territory. The animal type human used to share its food loyally with tribe members. In times of shortage you could only survive by violently defending properties such as your hut and food. Property is a primary condition for humans and animals to survive. Today property is still the answer for the problem of scarcity; cars, houses, etc. are not unrestricted available (as a joke it is said that only air is not scarce).
That is mine according to Darwin
If we launch Darwin's proposition "survival of the fittest by natural selection" on this we can conclude that individuals with a strong social behaviour in combination with a developed feeling of property have a bigger chance to survive and - as a result - have a bigger chance to pass their genes with those properties to a next generation. In other words:
Evolution has programmed a strong developed feeling of property in our genes in a Darwinistic way.
Now feeling and common sense don't go along often which is also the case for our feelings of property.
Suppose you have applied springs to your small garden gate with "the touch of a genius" that closes the door automagically. After a month you notice that your neighbor copied your idea - call it an invention - and another month later all garden gates in the city are provided with springs. At that moment you may become angry and start saying: "they have stolen my idea!". That emotion is understandable but is the accusation justified? "My idea" means "mine", "it is my property". Property? Nobody may touch it? Complete right to do with it whatever you want to? No, fortunately not, now the complete city benefits your great idea, the community is in progression by copying "your" idea.
The emotion of property is an instinct to survive but we are not aware of it (as is usual with instincts). That keeps us from asking ourself a critical question: can an idea be a property? Legally property is defined as a right to do with a good whatever you want to do with it. So the answer is no, an idea is not a good!
The base of our current prosperity is freely accessible and applicable knowledge in order to serve as many people and organizations as possible. Freedom of information promotes true competition and as a result it stimulates research and development and is the key to the further development of humanity.
This is also the reason why the legislator never wanted to see creations of the mind - such as inventions (an idea) - as a real property like a house or a car (goods).
And how about "intellectual property"?
It may be clear that "intellectual property" is a false and misleading term: mental creations are no material goods with the associated right to do with it whatever you want.
However the legislator introduced copyright and patent right for mental creations and those rights do share some characteristics of property but again it is not true property right as with goods. For this reason a good lawyer interprets "intellectual property" in a complete different way then the inventor of the self closing garden gate who did not read the previous: the poor soul lets his instinct dictate him that the idea is real property.
quote writer: "I intentionally talk about a 'good lawyer' because in Brussels I have held conversations with political assistants with a legal background without the slightest awareness of the difference between property rights and exclusion rights and being very open minded towards the bull shit fomated by certain lobbyists"
So it is better to speak about copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. instead of "intellectual property". They must be interpreted as exclusion rights. It is good to see a trend inside the UN where people omit the term "intellectual property" and it would be nice if that spark would enlight governments to do the some thing. But there is still another important reason: within our society interest groups such as BSA, Microsoft, Philips and RIAA try to give mental creations the same meaning as physical and goods. Only this way they can complain that "goods" such as software, music and films are really stolen when they are downloaded. They spend millions and do everything they can to brain wash politicians and civil servants and they are successfully. In the US the shit hits the fan and Europe should watch out not slide down in the same direction.
A Norwegian newspaper wrote the following: the sentence for distributing child pornography is 7 years whereas violation on copyright is 10 years is under the proposed new Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2006. The maximum fine for dumping chemical waste is $27.500 per day versus $500.000 by case if it concerns breach of copyright. The Inquirer wrote that if you copy Graig David's CD you get 10 years, but if you beat him in his face and do some further rebuilding so he stays in coma for seven days you end up with only 6 years in prison.
Summary:
The term "intellectual property" is a misleading term and may be considered as a PR action of groups inside our society with an interest of stimulating a false feeling of property when it comes to non physical things like music, software, etc... It is better to speak of patent rights, copyright, etc. or using the generic term exclusion rights.
Copyright and patents are respectively as pepper and salt. On free software it is simply rancid, a surplus of pepper and salt tastes not nice on most dishes and smart people eat low-salt.
Dutch: Eigendom
A short addition can be found at Intellectual Property