Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

On 8/5/2000, Jeremy G. Byrne <jeremy[_at_]iz.org> wrote:
>
> Sure, and in mine nobody should be permitted to claim for themselves
> a chunk of my cultural heritage, a particular slice of my language,
> an image, a melody, an aspect of the human condition presented as
> an arrangement of symbols, a character, a catchy name which has
> become part of my experience, worked itself into my memories; nobody
> should be able to prevent me re-using that art, those words, the
> ideas, the style, the technique, in any way I choose. As I see it,
> an artist fixes combinations of ideas, doesn't _create_ them, and
> ceding exclusive control to an individual of something which should
> be freely available to everyone is a very high price to pay for
> "encouraging the useful &c."

This is the "me me me" approach, where you're arguing that you shouldn't be expected to pay for anything that you pronounce is a part of your cultural heritage. This kind of put-down of artists has been going on for centuries, where you're arguing that the only important thing about art is that _you_ experience and want it, not that the artist made it.

By your reasoning, no mechanic is entitled to be paid for fixing your car, because he didn't, after all, manufacture the car. Enough that he should have the privilege or honor of fixing _your_ car for _you_.

pat sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Sat Aug 05 2000 - 16:39:15 GMT