Are intellectual property rights a good thing?

Yes.
100% (6 votes)
No.
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 6

Comments

Not only are intellectual property rights a "good thing", a positive (in terms of impact and use) legal pry that aids individuals to better solidify their respective works in the fields that they wish to contribute knowledge to, but they are, without any question, highly necesseray not only from an ethical point of view (as in it is not right or commendable to plagiarise as a matter of moral integrity) but from a pragmatic point of view as well. It is, without a doubt, in the best interest of the Academia to ensure that the originility and uniqueness of any new research project (not in any form that it may take, of course) is the driving principle behind the writing and framing of that particular intellectual body of work. Intellectual capital is in now way scarce in any field of academic research, so it can be stated that having the previously mentioned factors as fundamental guiding principles in the line of taught that defines academic research is perfectly realistic and achievable. In this context, intellectual proprety rights ensure not only that the ideas of one, well established intellectual figure in a certain field of the academic spectre are not abused or missued (as they often tend to be, especially by students) but they also keep an empirically observabile parameter for originilaty as a fundmanetal principle in research. From a legal point of view, this kind of rights is easily understandible under any system of law and in most juridical cases the implications are rarely equivocal, as anyone can percive them as the respective rights of one individual to being fully entilted to what that particular individual has created, a personal, inalienable piece of work.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 4
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Dear Călin,

your conclusions are proper in a whole but in some way superficial because you're focused on the academic sphere mostly. You should think about it.

But thank you very much for your feedback)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

I centered my argument wholly on the "academic sphere" because I taught it concered,as a point of general focus, primarly the subject of "Scientific Europeism" as a branch, a category of the larger Internation Relationships (IR) field of study that is consequently a part of the study of Political Sciences. These are all, mostly disscused and analyzed in what it came to be commonly referred as academic circles an intrinsic part of the "Academia". Of course, I agree that the point addressed itself of intellectual property rights is the focus of many other fields of study and so are various other law related subjects, this goes without question. But, of course, a more exhaustive and comprehensive response should have a format that is more formal than a mere, simple comment and I'm sure you agree with this.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

In addition to the fact that Calin's answer focuses on academic research, it gives the impression that it at times refers to the moral rights of authors to be recognised as the authors of their work (attribution), something that is not even commercially transferable.

But the main deficiency of the answer is that it does not even mention the argument presented in the second video by Noam Chomsky, namely that intellectual property rights do not increase freedom but foster the creation of monopolies, that these rights are usually held by big corporations, and that the research that allowed the creation of those inventions is generally publicly funded, so that intellectual property is just a way for the attorneys of big corporations to privatise a publicly funded invention in order to create a monopoly and charge higher prices to consumers for it.

Even if one does not agree with this view, it should be taken into account in a balanced answer.

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

1. Once in the Soviet Union had many informative magazines which published various design ideas that people share with each other. The responsible person always emphasize the idea whose they are, though thanks to this man, ale were those that just used ... 2. But it is a situation where one and the same idea comes to mind to different people. I personally saw two equally styled stools in the Amsterdam museum, only one of them was wooden, and the other one was metallic. The authors of these chairs lived in different countries at the same time ... 3. With respect to corporations, there comes into play "benefit (profit)," which receives the one who first. In this case, the inventor wants to have the result. 4. On the other hand, everything is governed by rules that often change
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 2
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 2
Expert vote

The most amazing and paradoxical thing about intellectual property is the impossibility to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed from the beginning "in general".

The modern development of the sphere of intellectual property is full of contradictions. Here are just a few of them:

- expansion of the use of intellectual property rights VS increasing the riskiness of intellectual property relations;

- "proliferation" of innovation with the help of intellectual property VS the effect of "anti-ascent" (underutilisation of intellectual resources);

- rising commodification of intellectual resources VS  social initiatives development aimed to overcome monopoly and oligopolistic expansion;

- unification of the rules of intellectual property law VS rigidity of the intellectual property global system;

- increasing responsibility and control over intellectual property infringements VS progress of "gray" practices of reproduction of intellectual products;

- diversification of the range of instruments for regulating intellectual property VS competition of intellectual property rights regimes;

- calibrating the global intellectual property system to the uniting efforts and developing partnerships VS differentiation of national policies in the field of intellectual property rights protection.

The contradictions mentioned above show a conflict of interests of stakeholders, the main reason of which is that today humanity tried to solve intellectual property problems based on the experience of interaction with the property institute. But the last one, in fact, is based on the principally different model.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote