<nettime> it's (y)our digest [gray, flagan]

["nettime's_ur-member" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

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