immateriblog.de

Ich gebe hier eine Mail an die A2K-Liste wieder, die Stallman zu den Verhandlungen über ACTA geschrieben hat, weil er wieder einmal den Nagel auf den Kopf trifft:

The reason I remind people to think about the term „intellectual property“ is that I believe its confusion gives great help to our enemies in the long term.  Repeating their propaganda is an own-goal.

However, with ACTA there is a more immediate reason to expose the confusion in the term „intellectual property“– because the treaty uses that term.

(See http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/06/15/thoughts-acta-negotiations/)

The drafters of this treaty have been led into confusion by their own propaganda.  (It was only a matter of time before this happened.) They have written treaty requirements in terms of „intellectual property“.  This means, in effect, imposing a single policy on copyrights, patents, and trademarks, trade secrets?, and maybe other legal issues as well.

The term „intellectual property“ leads people to make the mistake of lumping these laws together, and the treaty negotiators have made this mistake in the treaty itself.  Since these laws are so different, forcing one policy on all of them is inevitably absurd.
We need to show legislators that the term „intellectual property“ is incoherent, because that shows ACTA is incoherent.