首页> 外文期刊>Science as Culture >Cloning Computers: From Rights of Possession to Rights of Creation
【24h】

Cloning Computers: From Rights of Possession to Rights of Creation

机译:克隆计算机:从拥有权到创造权

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Strathern shows how the 'hybrid embrace' promoted by intellectual property rights entails new practices of purification, while the right to intellectual property seeks its own new separations of Nature from Society (Strathern, 1999, p. 161). In the 1970s, Brazilian computer professionals, in defending what I have depicted as the incorporation of the unknown in the form of foreign technology (that is, artefacts which are the intellectual property of an author) into the unknown in Nature (that is, non-appropriated natural phenomena), committed what seemed to be an unbearable transgression in the imperial eyes of the colonizers. But they were, in fact, retracing the division between Nature (which expanded to encompass new entities or objects) and Society (which contracted to lose, for example, copyrights and patents), which is something that moderns are constantly doing (Latour, 1993). Thus, we may think about two Natures, one delineated by the colonized (computer professionals of Brazil) and the other by the colonizers (western international capital and technoscience): initially the former incorporates as natural objects the artefacts of foreign technology, while the latter denies that these are hybrid objects with complex boundaries. This is the case, even though the colonizers have succeeded in partially disentangling them to assign the corresponding rights to an author (creator). Neither of the two natures (nor their respective societies) refers to a definite entity given in a pre-discursive reality. In other words, the struggle for the fidelity of the allies of the colonizers may be displaced to new (more even and less violent?) spaces of negotiation by increasing the visibility of the ontological policing (surveillance and punishment) of the colonizer. Colonizers appeal to a transcendent Nature and repress other ontological possibilities in order to legitimate and impose specific social rules and hierarchies as universally legitimate behaviour.
机译:斯特拉瑟恩(Strathern)展示了知识产权促进的“杂种拥抱”如何带来新的净化实践,而知识产权权则寻求自然与社会的新分离(Strathern,1999,第161页)。在1970年代,巴西的计算机专业人士捍卫了我所描述的将外国技术形式的未知物(即,作为作者的知识产权的人工制品)并入自然界中的未知物(即非-专有的自然现象),在殖民者的帝国眼中犯下了一种似乎无法忍受的过犯。但实际上,它们正在追溯自然(扩展到新实体或物体的范围)和社会(收缩而失去版权和专利等)之间的分界,这是现代人一直在做的事情(Latour,1993年) )。因此,我们可以考虑两种性质,一种由殖民者(巴西的计算机专业人员)划定,另一种由殖民者(西方国际资本和技术科学)划定:最初,前者将外国技术的人工制品作为自然物体,而后者否认这些是具有复杂边界的混合对象。即使殖民者已经成功地部分解散了他们,以将相应的权利分配给作者(创作者),情况依然如此。两种性质(或它们各自的社会)都没有指代先驱现实中给出的确定实体。换句话说,为争取殖民者盟友的忠诚而进行的斗争可能会通过增加殖民者的本体治安(监视和惩罚)的可见性而转移到新的(甚至更少和更少暴力?)谈判空间。殖民者呼吁超越自然,并压制其他本体论可能性,以合法化并强加特定的社会规则和等级制度作为普遍合法的行为。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号