- EFF Copyright FAQ
- CNI: Discussion on Copyrights of Chess Records
- CNI: More Discussion on Copyrights of Chess Records
- Debian Legal: Discussion on Copyrights of Chess Game Collections
- Comic on copyright
- Checklist on Fair Use
- Fair Use
- Posting Materials on the Internet
- "Free Culture"-book
Intellectual Property (IP) in general
Pages at SL
- Copyright and license issues (index page)
- Japanese copyright law
- Off Topic - patent discussion
- Problem collections and copyright discussion
- Game Records Copyright Discussion
 Anonymous: The term "intellectual property" is very misleading. Read this article to learn more about the topic.
(tderz): The article states that copyright, patent law and trademark law are different laws (who'd dare to disagree?) and then continues with the opinion that therefore the term "Intellectual Property (IP)" - or any other replacing term - for grouping them together would be misleading - because it would create overgeneralization.
In addidition the term "property" would suggest thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects.
The article slightly touches origin and problems (fairness, "rich countries impose laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them") of the different laws and offers alternative, better(?) names for IP ("legislative colonization"; IMPs = Imposed Monopoly Privileges; GOLEMs = Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies).
The article concludes with the true "treat each of these laws separately; don't suggest generalizing about them."
 I (tderz) have moved this article link to the bottom of the page, because this article is only of use to you, if you have this problem of overgeneralization when using the term IP for grouping copyright, patent law and trademark law together.
The article does not teach you much more about IP or its laws than the author's strong opinions on them.
 TRIPS? problems are meant
 funny indeed: but does it always hold? E.g. patents give limited exclusive rights to inventors in exchange for disclosure (the invention). Competitors can buy licenses and pay royalties for the bought knowledge. Patent law is alike for applicants/inventors, competitors, the public and more parties involved. I have problems to agree with the tenor of the article that the world is bad & unfair only due to the mentioned laws (now I quoted unfairly here).
Just a comment: GNU's philosophy on the matter is not the only one out there. I am not sure the debate over what constitutes "intellectual property" is in any way appropriate to this venue. -- nachtrabe