Richard Stallman against the concept of intellectual property

I received a number of emails of Richard Stallman, related to the foundational essay on peer to peer that was published in CTheory last year.

Most of his comments focused on possible confusion, mistakes on my part, on the precise differences and commonalities between free software and open source.

He also vigorously challenged my use of intellectual property as a concept, and referred me to the following mini-essay, which summarizes why we should not use this term.

I’m reproducing part of it here, but recommend reading the whole piece.

Richard Stallman:

“It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks – three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws — into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not arise by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fad that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization, and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.)

The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias of “intellectual property” suits them.

The bias is enough reason to reject the term, and people have often asked me to propose some other name for the overall category — or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of “exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions as “rights” is doublethink too.

Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other term. A different name will not address the term’s deeper problem: overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as “intellectual property”–it is a mirage. The only reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term gives that impression.

The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Non-lawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle, and function similarly.

Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.

Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it–a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.

Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of “intellectual property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.

Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you learn some fact about copyright law, you’d be wise to assume that patent law is different. You’ll rarely go wrong!

People often say “intellectual property” when they really mean some larger or smaller category. For instance, rich countries often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them. Some of these laws are “intellectual property” laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use an accurate term, such as “legislative colonization”, that gets to the heart of the matter.”

3 Comments Richard Stallman against the concept of intellectual property

  1. Pingback: ANA Marketing Maestros

  2. AvatarNicholas Bentley

    I totally agree with Richard Stallman’s argument that the catchall term of Intellectual Property is misleading and distorting, that copyright, patents and trademarks should be treated independently, and that thinking of intellectual ideas and expressions as equivalent to physical property is bad.

    However, when it comes to copyright, I believe Stallman is also at risk of falling into the property trap when he says, ‘Some speak of “exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions as “rights” is doublethink too.’ Rights to a limited resource (like physical property) does restrict someone else’s access but rights to a resource without limits (intellectual content) need not restrict access by others. The idea of applying rights to intellectual content should not be dismissed in the same way that the ‘property’ equivalence is dismissed.

    You can own ‘a right’ to something even if you don’t own the whole thing. Stallman owns the right to say he was the author of ‘Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage’ ( Copyright © 2004, 2006 Richard M. Stallman) while at the same time everyone else can own the right to a copy of the essay (Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved).

    I
    have argued that, rather than being dismissed, a real emphasis on rights, rights for consumers and producers, could provide a productive route forward especially as the copy-right regime is already well established.

  3. AvatarNicholas Bentley

    In his essay Stallman quotes Professor Mark Lemley:

    “According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fad that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization, and only became really common in recent years.”

    I have just been reading Copyright, Commodification, and Culture where Julie Cohen says:

    “As Tyler Ochoa and Edward Lee have described, nineteenth-century American courts used the terms ‘public property,’ ‘common property,’ and publici juris, which translates loosely as ‘of public right,’ to refer to both noncopyrightable and nonpatentable subject matter.”

    and she supports this with numerous citations. If all public domain material was thought of as public ‘property’ in the 1800’s this makes me believe that non-public intellectual material was also thought of as ‘property’. So the generic term, Intellectual Property, is not so new and this probably explains why it is so well embedded in our thinking.

    This is not to say that it is a good term 🙂

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.