Exactly where did I say that "people who support IP are just like those slave owners"? (Hint: nowhere)
For the record, I happen to be quite a strong supporter of IP in general (and no, I don't support slavery). However, I also know that IP needs to evolve if it's to retain its value, and that this evolution demands a change in the underlying concept of property itself (a concept which, obviously, extends waaay past IP).
That puts me in direct conflict with people who don't want to make changes in this broader concept a part of the conversation regarding IP, and who back up this resistance by advancing a notion of property rights in general as being inflexible, absolute, and beyond question.
Obviously, this absolutist position has a dramatic narrowing effect on any IP-specific discussion, which is the whole point of taking that position in the first place. It is a suppressive tactic. In THIS regard, what we're seeing now is very similar to what happened in America in the 18th Century; SOME people who were in favor of slavery attempted to steer the conversation about it by advancing an inflexible, absolutist idea of property in general, promoting it as a socially necessary good. Then, like now, the assumption was that the status quo could be protected if property as an evolving concept were kept off the table, and property as a non-evolving concept were kept on it.
And THAT is what I'm talking about. I'm not making ridiculous claims that IP and slavery themselves are commensurate, or that people who support one are like people who support the other. And frankly, you'd have to be very careless or dishonest in your reading to assert that I am.
No, what I am (and have been) talking about are very specific tactics surrounding the rhetorical treatment of the idea of property in general. I'm noting that these tactics appeared when slavery was still seen as defensible, and I'm noting that remarkably similar tactics and treatments are appearing in IP debates today - especially ones in which people are trying to justify increasingly extreme measures to protect an outdated status quo.
These people - who can come from Malibu as easily as they come from Mississippi - aren't simply scared of change. After all, lots of people scared of change don't resort to falsifying the historic flexibility of property as a concept before using it to frame a debate. Only a vociferous and dangerous subset choose to employ this particular strategy.
Fortunately, the historic record contains many examples of this very aggressive response. And because there's a clear pattern to it, this record can be mined for counter examples that show how it was eventually defeated. Of course, it helps to have specific points of reference. Vague and neutral generalities help no one except those who are on the wrong side of this in the first place.
And yes, this is a partisan view. That's because the absolutist idea of inflexible property is also a partisan view. The moment you hear it, you should know that you're dealing with a person conducting their own non-neutral and highly offensive attack, and you should respond accordingly.
Exactly where did I say that "people who support IP are just like those slave owners"? (Hint: nowhere)
For the record, I happen to be quite a strong supporter of IP in general (and no, I don't support slavery). However, I also know that IP needs to evolve if it's to retain its value, and that this evolution demands a change in the underlying concept of property itself (a concept which, obviously, extends waaay past IP).
That puts me in direct conflict with people who don't want to make changes in this broader concept a part of the conversation regarding IP, and who back up this resistance by advancing a notion of property rights in general as being inflexible, absolute, and beyond question.
Obviously, this absolutist position has a dramatic narrowing effect on any IP-specific discussion, which is the whole point of taking that position in the first place. It is a suppressive tactic. In THIS regard, what we're seeing now is very similar to what happened in America in the 18th Century; SOME people who were in favor of slavery attempted to steer the conversation about it by advancing an inflexible, absolutist idea of property in general, promoting it as a socially necessary good. Then, like now, the assumption was that the status quo could be protected if property as an evolving concept were kept off the table, and property as a non-evolving concept were kept on it.
And THAT is what I'm talking about. I'm not making ridiculous claims that IP and slavery themselves are commensurate, or that people who support one are like people who support the other. And frankly, you'd have to be very careless or dishonest in your reading to assert that I am.
No, what I am (and have been) talking about are very specific tactics surrounding the rhetorical treatment of the idea of property in general. I'm noting that these tactics appeared when slavery was still seen as defensible, and I'm noting that remarkably similar tactics and treatments are appearing in IP debates today - especially ones in which people are trying to justify increasingly extreme measures to protect an outdated status quo.
These people - who can come from Malibu as easily as they come from Mississippi - aren't simply scared of change. After all, lots of people scared of change don't resort to falsifying the historic flexibility of property as a concept before using it to frame a debate. Only a vociferous and dangerous subset choose to employ this particular strategy.
Fortunately, the historic record contains many examples of this very aggressive response. And because there's a clear pattern to it, this record can be mined for counter examples that show how it was eventually defeated. Of course, it helps to have specific points of reference. Vague and neutral generalities help no one except those who are on the wrong side of this in the first place.
And yes, this is a partisan view. That's because the absolutist idea of inflexible property is also a partisan view. The moment you hear it, you should know that you're dealing with a person conducting their own non-neutral and highly offensive attack, and you should respond accordingly.
"Go to hell" is putting it politely.