Comments on: Barlow

By: raoul

raoul — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:12:21 +0000

Kerry is in the pockets of the multinational media conglomerates just as Bush is. However, I agree with John Perry, in that Kerry should be more aligned with those in the culture war on the copyright reform side. Sometimes change can only come in increments.

By: Branko Collin

Branko Collin — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:49:33 +0000

How does this work? As a Dutchman, I am not very well informed about libertarians. The way I picture them is as bearded guys wearing straw hats, standing on the porches of their farms with double-barreled shotguns, saying (uh-oh, I feel a copyright infringement law suit coming up): "This land is my land. Get off."

I fail to imagine how they would do that with (privately regulated) creative works. Come in my home and tell me that I cannot make that copy? Aren't they afraid of my shotgun?

(My conceptions of libertarians are probably misconceptions.)

By: phnk

phnk — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:20:42 +0000

The above comment backs up what I wrote in another entry : libertarians would surely be for IP, but not if state-driven. They would very probably defend private IPR management.

By: Joseph Pietro Riolo

Joseph Pietro Riolo — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:06:07 +0000

Readers should be aware that the libertarianism's
position on intellectual property rights varies
greatly from one libertarian to other libertarian.

Some libertarians believe that copyright (as
well as other intellectual property rights)
should be perpetual, just like real property
rights. They even claim that people should be
able to own ideas.

Other libertarians see copyright as a government
intervention and therefore, it should not be
supported.

The bottom line is: Don't assume that libertarianism
wholly embraces the freedom of knowledge (the public
domain).

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:59:13 +0000

"I personally think intellectual property is an oxymoron. Physical objects have a completely different natural economy than intellectual goods. It�s a tricky thing to try to own something that remains in your possession even after you give it to many others."

From what I've seen (please correct me if you've seen otherwise), intellectual property rights are most often exercised when one applies another's intellectual property to produce a tangible result (where "tangible" can include software or publications in addition to physical objects). This seems like an important distinction to me.

By: JonBuck

JonBuck — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:09:49 +0000

He's hit the nail on the head regarding so-called "Intellectual Property". You can't steal an intangible thing. And the way things are going might end up with de facto restrictions on freedom of speech.

As for Libertarianism, I don't think we'll see it (at least on a large scale) in this country until we have a culture shift where people actually take responsibility for their actions. No more suing McDonald's for "making" people fat.

By: Thien

Thien — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:44:35 +0000

If anyone hasn't seen it, I urge you to check out Barlow's talk at the Conference on the Public Domain at Duke in 2001. It should be available on Duke Law's website.

By: koreyel

koreyel — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:25:16 +0000

In order to be libertarian, you have to be an optimist. You have to have a benign view of human nature, to believe that human beings left to their own devices are basically good. But I�m not so sure about human institutions."

Not so sure of institutions? What's not to be sure of? Survey your life experience. How many benign user-friendly institutions can you tick off?

Human beings have a tendency to create poor institutions. Just as cats tend to land on their paws and money tends to aggrandize.

It is near enough a natural law.

As for this: In order to be libertarian, you have to be an optimist. ...

It should really read In order to be a believer in democracy, you have to be an optimist.

Democracy assumes human beings are wise enough to manage themselves. That is hugely optimistic because it assumes the best of people. And it is that core feature that makes Democracy one of the few ideas worth dying for.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 04:18:03 +0000

Go barlow