No, I'm saying something completely different. Bob wants to do "thing" and as part of "thing" he wants to include stuff from Fred. Fred gets wind of what Bob is doing, wants no part of it, and even though he has not in the past made an issue of people using his stuff before goes after Bob for doing it.

If you want to make your argument, that would be the Al Capone scenario. We can't get him for all the other crap he did, but we can get him on tax evasion.

In any case, none of those arguments (including the one in the Wired article) are making the argument you try to analogize to here.

The argument I'm making is that using bad law to attack a problem is not an acceptable tactic. It gives strength to the bad law. Another approach is necessary in order to not create another larger problem. There is an ethics issue at hand.

Everyone has to pay taxes for the system to work. To that end, tax law is not only necessary, but a good idea. Al Capone was making tons of money, he was not paying taxes, tax law is valid, going after him with tax law is A-OK. It does serve as a good example, just not of the point I'm making.

It's more like this: Bob is a bad scientist with a crack pot theory. He is using selective parts of Fred's research to support his own, along with the works of others. Fred gets wind of what Bob is doing, and invokes bad law that allows him to limit the usage of Fred's work in ways that are "derogatory to or critical of" Fred's theories. Fred's tactics are generally supported because his goals are in line with what the educated open-minded majority wants. However, the long term effects of supporting this tactic are damaging because they go directly against what educated open-minded people depend upon for their free expression rights and ability to comment on research. Years later, the situation comes back to bite Fred and all of his colleagues in the ass when the same law is used on him after he releases a paper citing the environmental damage created by the usage of a certain chemical. The chemical maker sues him saying that he cannot include any mention of any actions or research the chemical company did in a paper that is "derogatory to or critical of" the chemical company or its products. After removing all references to the company's actions and it's own research, the paper is unable to explain Fred's findings in a way that allows others to understand them.

We all build our work on the backs of each other's work. The mechanisms that support that cannot be allowed to come under threat just because it's necessary to confront one crackpot idea.

Granick is making the same point I am. What she says supports my argument that this is IP being used for censorship, as she clearly states that "we have increasingly seen owners leverage their IP rights to get control rather than to get paid." I fully agree with her assertion that copyright owners should not be able to "enforce an ideological litmus test for permission to use a work."

Intelligent design is bullshit, but this isn't the right way to attack it.

RE: Intellectual Property Evolutionists Are Wrong!