Property rights are widely known as do not kill and do not steal are one of the most accepted moral principles all around the world. Inherent to property is having the control over an object. For example you control your body or even more simple, the paper and ink that are in your possesion. In this principal comment it is questioned if forcing intellectual property is moral from a right based perspective.
First one needs to know that property can be gained by trade, donating or homesteading. Homesteading is acquiring property in accordance with the “first come, first go” principle. Especially, the “first come” part is important, as when this is not respected, one actually steals the property from someone else. Consequentally, allowing this would make the concept of property rights useless.
Intellectual property differs in a fundamental way from material property as there is scarcity in our material world. When you own a certain stack of paper, it is impossible for others to use or control that stack without your permission. An idea concerning business ethics can, however, be replicated without someone else being damaged in material property. The idea did not become more scarce and there was no conflict over property. Thus it can be concluded that forcing people to not be able to freely use their paper and ink, is in conflict with respecting property rights.
Another often made mistake is that the creation of something gives a right to the property of that creation. This is not true, as creation is just the transformation of materials that were already someones property. Even more, to assume one has a right to the value of a creation is also wrong, because every individual values products differently and even that value fluctuates.
To conclude it can be said that intellectual property is a new immoral way to control scarce property. When this is allowed, the path is free for other ways to control already taken property. This will only result in conflicts and the purpose of property will vanish completely.
S901648
2 comments:
Property rights in the case presented here are taken to is extreme. However I do agree it is immoral to charge 68Euro for a reader, I have to disagree with the author here. Something which is created by a certain person is the property of that person as long as he or she used materials obtained by that certain individual. Plagiarism is in no case moral.
To give an example; I am currently working on my bachelor thesis, although I use sources in the form of the work intellects, I do refer to them properly. On top of that, I work out my own thoughts and ideas. The ideas I come up with and write down are my property, I came up with them, they are a product of my thoughts or imagination.
If someone were to use the product of my thoughts, I would like to be compensated in a way. If it were only one to use my product, being altered or used to fit his or her own work, I would settle for an adequate reference. However, on the scale which the articles are literally reproduced in the reader, a larger compensation is in order.
I would also like to mention it is debatable whether we actually consciously control our actions and decisions, which is actually what my thesis is about. Our subconscious controls a lot of our daily lives and activities, just think of how many things we do automatically.
ANR:516159
Bart, just for the information:
Plagiarism (to pretend to be the author of something someone else made) is a form of identity theft. Identity theft is something I too find immoral, but that has got nothing to do with the case I made.
If you want to be compensated for your work, you should not disclose your work and create a contract with interested parties.
The author (901648).
Post a Comment