Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm
From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is property?
Message-ID: <870@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.870
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 12:08:23 EST
References: <370@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <5252@utzoo.UUCP> <4985@ukc.UUCP> <836@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <1853Re: What is property? <5366@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <5366@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>Whoops! <mike wants to do away with ``intellectual property''?
>Whatever for? If I don't have the right to my own thoughts, then
>how can I have the right to anything else?

I'm using "intellectual property" in the same sense as it's used when
talking about copyright and patent protection. I don't want to do away
with your ownership of your thoughts. However, I reject the notion that
you can own the copy you've given to someone else.

The stance is similar to RMS's (is he listening??) stance on software,
extended to cover the other kinds of intellectual property. Minus, of
course, the implication that it's your duty to give your work to someone
else. You are perfectly free to take your thoughts and hide them from
the world. I'd consider such action antisocial, somewhat like not
donating to charities. Something to be discouraged, but not
justification for using force on the perpetrator.

To put the boot on the other foot, can you justify using force on other
people so they won't give away (legally obtained) copies of your
software, if you don't have a contract with them to prevent such action?

	<mike