NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/3211

Text File | 1993-01-08 | 1.9 KB | 44 lines

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!feld
From: [e-mail] (Michael Feld)
Subject: Intellectual Property Rights
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: ccu.umanitoba.ca
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:56:46 GMT
Lines: 32

Whatever the specific virtues of liberating software, and given the
reality of a society that awards real-property rights, just a word
about the justification of legal protection for intellectual property:

There are two basic lines of defence:
    1) fairness (inherent property rights) -- wasn't it a shame
that Shakespeare could not copyright/patent his work, and that others
reaped the benefit of printing ...
    2) utility -- research won't take place, or, worse, its fruits
won't be shared, unless the state recognize property rights in ideas.

The first argument would grab me in a more ideal world, I suppose, but
in a world which sees most patent rights (and many software
copyrights) assigned to corporations, soul-less beasts, "merit" seems
a remote foundation.

The second argument is sound, or not, depending on circumstances.
Canada is currently in the process of caving in to US pharmaceutical
firms which want us to roll back our modest relaxation of patent
rights for older medicines (i.e., our "lax" patents for patent
medicines); most of the evidence suggests we'd benefit from being free
riders.

So, here is the real moral question: will software disappear, or be
kept secret (as so many unprotectable industrial processes are) if
programs are property?  If not, if programmers are modest hobbyists or
U profs seeking glory or tenure, then why the fuss?
--
Michael Feld                  | E-mail: <[e-mail]>
Dept. of Philosophy           | FAX: [phone]
University of Manitoba        | Voice: [phone]
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada