[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Intellectual Property Regimes and Indigenous Sovereignty

[Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET>]

>>>>> "nr" == Ned Rossiter <Ned.Rossiter@arts.monash.edu.au> writes:

    nr> pursue IP rights.

IP rights are not human rights.  IP laws were designed by rich
countries for economic benefit.  They are business laws meant to
encourage the _creation_ of desireable creative works.

    nr> cultural capital.

IP laws were not designed to transform existing knowledge into wealth.
They were designed to bring new knowledge into existence.

The possibility that abusing them for the other purpose will give
money to poor cultures is not a justification for doing so.  There are
other harmful consequences to abusing IP laws by increasing the
protection given to existing knowledge after its creation.  

Indigenous so-called ``cultural capital'' came into existence without
IP laws to foster it.  Using IP laws to turn culture into capital is
an abuse of the IP concept, similar to Disney's repeated extensions on
their copyright to Mickey Mouse.  Your abuse assists their abuse.

The IP issue is an important ongoing argument that is worth dipping
into, but to bring up the indigenous culture guilt-trip without
discussing the rest of the argument is a mistake.

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold