w1ld wrote:
] ] SAN FRANCISCO -- Silicon Valley needs to step up and
] ] protect the open traditions that have helped build the
] ] high-technology industry or run the risk of being
] ] dominated by "IP extremists" whose restrictions on the
] ] use of intellectual property (IP) would stifle
] ] innovation, Stanford Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig
] ] told an audience of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs,
] ] lawyers, and venture capitalists at the Open Source
] ] Business Conference here Tuesday.

am I an "IP extremist" because I want there to be NO copyright law?

and must everything become 'extreme'? EXTREME IP!

flynn23 wrote:
] am I an "IP extremist" because I want there to be NO copyright
] law?

Yes. That is just as bad.

The concept of Copyright, and Intellectual Property in general, isn't the problem. The way we use it is the problem. If we do not have IP, we cannot create markets OR commons. There would be no way to enforce standards of operation for either. If we cannot create markets for information, people who produce art will never be able to make a livelihood with any of our Internet toys. If we cannot enforce rules the of a commons, we will not be able to develop any sciences in the open.

Be careful what you ask for.

] and must everything become 'extreme'? EXTREME IP!

Because you can be on far left or the far right, and be pretty much the same thing. Unreasonable and destructive. Extremes are bad. Extremist positions are the enemy of all systems of order which respect diversity and freedom.

We know maximum IP protection is bad for innovation. Don't assume anarchy would be good either. Anarchy does not scale. We must look for balance between these two extremes.

We live in a globalized society based on law and order. Like it or not, IP is a part of that. Concepts of Intellectual Property will evolve to deal with the removal of scarcity and copy cost as primary factors in their usage. Its just going to take awhile and be an up-hill battle.