nettime's_ur-member on Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:20:21 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> it's (y)our digest [gray, flagan] |
Re: Indigenous IPR (was: Re: <nettime> Dark Markets: Whose Democracy?) Tom_Gray@Mitel.COM Are Flagan <areflagan@artpanorama.com> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Subject: Re: Indigenous IPR (was: Re: <nettime> Dark Markets: Whose Democracy?) From: Tom_Gray@Mitel.COM Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:05:45 -0400 eyescratch@terminal.cz wrote > Remember too that the Gregorian calender and time-keeping system was pilfered from the Mayans. http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/gregorian_calendar.html The above URL gives a history of the modern calendar. To suggest that somehing as important as time keeping was not known to the ancients is simply nonsense. The Egyptians had a calendar basd on a year of 365.25 days - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:24:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Indigenous IPR (was: Re: <nettime> Dark Markets: Whose Democracy?) From: Are Flagan <areflagan@artpanorama.com> On 10/14/02 8:26, "Sean Smith" <s.a.smith@surrey.ac.uk> wrote: > coda: sure, it would be nice to get past property rights (all property IS > theft, after all), but surely a better conception of properrty is > collective ownership anyway? and where is the sense in not extending > property rights to marginalised ppls whilst not restricting the exercise of > property rights of powerful actors, such as TNCs?all that does is > legitimate the ongoing exploitation of indigenous ppls. > > i can't understand what is controversial about this? The proposal is in principle not controversial, nor do I think many people who have followed these posts will disagree with its intent. But its implementation poses the problems that have been on the menu of every Italian restaurant, managed by government, discussed. To presently enter into any sort of legal agreement pertaining to property and rights, the stake holder would in some measure have to be clearly defined. The proposal seems to turn this around, so that collective property rights would enable the establishment of different collectives than the individuals and corporations -- which already operate under the law as adequately defined entities -- that benefit from IPR. But would collectivity then emerge from the property, rather than a pre-defined collective, and would the rights to collectivity then be attributed to anyone who identified with the property? Last time I checked, I needed an officially endorsed passport for entry into this game. A related case with an indigenous connection: When an Oklahoma tribe of Native Americans was awarded monetary reparation, it controversially split the tribe. Why? Well, black slaves escaping from the east had gradually made their way west during the last century and ended up living with and marrying into the tribe. For generations the mixed offspring of this migration had been considered equal, living on reservation land in the tribal communities, but with substantial sums of money at stake, the elders invoked a pure bloodline as the only criterion for a check. The operational, cultural collective was effectively re-defined when shared property became the center of its definition. The controversy of collective ownership _follows_ your IPR argument, precisely because it does not precede it. -af PS: Any shared Paypal accounts posted yet? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net