|
Plane rides are for reading, so on my way to MT, I re-read the excellent artilcle by Prof. Mark Schultz and David Walker, HOW INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BECAME CONTROVERSIAL: NGOS AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL IP AGENDA.
The piece discusses what it calls "The New International IP Agenda" and its proponents, which have:
brought new controversy into international IP policy discussions. This broad agenda, united by a thread of skepticism regarding intellectual property and a common network of NGOs and activists, has been asserted in many different contexts. Discussions and negotiations regarding a wide variety of topics, including international development, pharmaceuticals, software patents, the digital divide, and cultural policy, now include contentious debates regarding the morality and efficacy of intellectual property rights. No one would deny that properly defining and delimiting intellectual property rights is devilishly difficult, but I don't think that is really the focus of the proponents of this new agenda, who are, basically, opposed to intelletual property. They do not want to solve the problems; they want to use the problems as a lever to undermine the basic institution of IP rights.
To a large degree, this attack uses the language of "human rights" -- the people of the world have a right to medicine, or knowledge, or whatever, and therefore anything that inhibits access RIGHT NOW, even in the interests of long run development, is immoral.
But what a crabbed view of human rights this represents. The peoples of the world have a right to be dependent, and to be doled out whatever goods and services the do-gooders and planners of the developed world decide they deserve, this year. (It may change next year.)
Those of us who are pro-property rights have a rather different view of human rights. We think everyone has a right to be a proud and producing member of the global economy, with an opportunity to reap the rewards of his/her actions and to decide for his/her self what goods and services he/she deserves in exchange. This seems not to be something the proponents of the new IP agenda want -- for whatever dark psychological reason.
But I will take our vision over theirs, any day, and under any criteria you want to apply, practical or ethical.
posted by James DeLong @ 12:34 PM | Big Tent, Free Culture Movement, International, Physical Property, Telecom
Link to this Entry |
Printer-Friendly |
Email a Comment | Post a Comment(1)
|
