Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Intellectual property

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Leo Brodie <leobro@comcast.net>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Intellectual property
  • Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:48:36 +0000 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion of intellectual property, I believe there's another
layer that hasn't been discussed here. It's not such a black-and-white issue.

I've written and published several books myself, and I agree that in the
current economic paradigm, the creator of the intellectual property should
have the right to profit from that work. The accepted principle is that an
author has no incentive to spend the time and energy creating the work if
someone else can give away copies for free. It's the same principle that a
farmer who builds a farm and grows food should not have someone else come in
and reap the harvest or share the harvest with others.

Although the concept of intellectual property is less than 200 years old, the
principle is a direct result of the ownership paradigm, which probably began
with the introduction of agriculture. In the current economic paradigm,
authors who want to spend a few years writing a book still need to feed
themselves and have shelter. This requires money, or at least the ownership
of land, which also requires money.

So while I side with the author in this case, I also desire to envision an
alternate world, a better world. It's often referred to as a "gift economy."
It's a world where the idea of "ownership" or "property" has no meaning.
Imagine this author lives in a world where no one owns the land, and everyone
contributes to the harvest, simply because that is our tribal nature. Now
this author is free to write a book without concern for feeding himself, but
simply out of the joy of sharing. It follows that this author would no more
think of the book as his property than is the land, or the rivers, or the air.

"Care for the earth" is inconsistent with the notion of owning it. "Care for
the people" is inconsistent with the notion that some people own the land and
others don't.

I realize this is a huge oversimplification. But I also suspect that it seems
like an oversimplification precisely because we're mired in a cultural story
that private ownership is natural. What if we had a different story, where
ownership was a bizarre idea?

- Leo Brodie




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page