creator and possessed a patent or copyright of some kind, then there would be no general gain and instead a net loss in society. However, if information was shared and copied freely in society, then there would be a net benefit and progress of some kind. This is because through ÂKantian evaluationÊ 5 , we can argue that if an abstract object is good, then copying it duplicates and spreads that good at a negligible cost. Therefore, if copying is considered moral through Kantian evaluation, then the restriction of copying - through IP rights - can be considered immoral. Furthermore, the profitability of IP rights can be argued to be fundamentally immoral as well. Assuming we accept that only some people in our society are innovators that receive copyrights and patents, then we must concede that their extra financial gain, in the form of monopoly power, is at the expense of the extra payment (loss) of other members of society. Encouraging individual gain over the general loss of society can be considered immoral and regressive, yet, unfortunately, this principle lies at the heart of IP rights and their role in our community. Having considered the debate about intellectual property rights from an economic, ethical, and philosophical angle, it is evident that IP rights do not exclusively foster or hinder our progress. The answer isnÊt straight forward, as each side of the debate possesses considerable disadvantages. Whilst the ethical and philosophical arguments on both sides are equally as convincing and substantial, I believe they depend particularly on oneÊs political and moral perspective. Whilst I side with a more libertarian view against IP rights, this part of the argument is far more subjective and open to question. However, a pragmatic approach to the economic issue tilts the scales in favour of IP rights. In my opinion, this is because the debate turns on the economic incentive factor, as it is the key to innovation and progress. Thus, the free-market approach that advocates competition as a source of innovation may be ineffective. This is because it does not incentivize producers and consumers to the
dynamic and progressive society is created through the use of IP rights. Lastly, it has been argued that intellectual property, in essence, is no different from tangible property. This is a matter of moral principle because if it is accepted that Âthe human mind itself is the source of wealth and survivalÊ 2 , then it can be said that, essentially, all property is intellectual property. Therefore, if violating tangible property rights is immoral, then violating IP rights constitutes an immoral act as well. Whilst some of the philosophical arguments in favour of IP rights are quite convincing, the case that they hinder progress is equally as compelling. For example, David Koepsell in his lecture Âthe ethical case against IPÊ 6 argues from a libertarian point of view. Using MillÊs Âliberty principleÊ, he argues we have Âunrestricted liberty except to the extent that it injures someone elseÊ. 5 This means we have a Âfundamental right to the autonomy of our minds and bodiesÊ 5 as well as Âfreedom of expressionÊ. 5 Koepsell went on to state that IP rights have one essential subject: expressions. This is because Âany idea made manifest in the world is the expression of that ideaÊ. 5 Therefore, IP rights infringe our liberties and hinder our progress in two key ways. First, they restrict peopleÊs freedom of expression by excluding ideas from being developed. Second, they do not comply with MillÊs liberty principle, as the reproduction of other peopleÊs expressions does not inflict physical harm on other members of society. One can also argue against IP rights through the Âuniversalization argumentÊ. 5 Universalization is perhaps the single most important principle of morality and IP rights ought to be examined in this respect. Hence, through IP rights, if everyone was a 6 The Ethical Case Against Intellectual Property . Perf. David Koepsell. The Ethical Case Against Intellectual Property . N.p., 17 May 2010. Web. 1 Aug 2013.
119
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker