Advertisement

Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 277–281 | Cite as

A case for intellectual property rights

Michele Boldrin and David Levine: Review of against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. viii+298, ISBN: 978-0-521-87928-6
  • Richard A. Spinello
Book Review
  • 361 Downloads

It has been over 12 years since the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), a disputed law that has given copyright holders an extra 20 years of legal protection for their works. The law withstood a constitutional challenge and now individual authors enjoy protection for 70 years after their death while rights of corporate authors endure for 95 years. This piece of legislation is an egregious example of the ability of powerful content providers to capture policy makers, since it is hard to argue that this extension promotes justice or serves the public interest by stimulating creativity. No author is apt to be incentivized by an extra 20 years of protection after his or her death. Nor does it seem a matter of social justice to have rights with this sort of longevity, especially when the legitimate needs of future creators are taken into account. The balance between individual rights and the common good must be carefully calibrated and this law creates a critical imbalance...

References

  1. Becker, L. (1977). Property rights. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Coombe, R. (1991). Objects of property and subjects of politics: Intellectual property laws and democratic dialogue. 69 Texas Law Review 1853.Google Scholar
  3. Fishman v. Estate of Wirtz. (1986). 807 F. 2d 520 (7th Cir.).Google Scholar
  4. Hughes, J. (1999). ‘Recoding’ intellectual property and overlooked audience interests. 77 Texas Law Review 923.Google Scholar
  5. Kwall, R. (1985). Copyright and the moral right: Is an American marriage possible. 38 Vanderbilt Law Review 4.Google Scholar
  6. Lemley, M. (1997). The Economics of improvement in intellectual property law. 75 Texas law Review 989.Google Scholar
  7. Lemley, M. (2005). Property, intellectual property, and free riding. 83 Texas Law Review 1031.Google Scholar
  8. Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government, P. Laslett (ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1698).Google Scholar
  9. Seshadri v. Kasraian. (1997). 130 F. 3d 798 (7th Cir.).Google Scholar
  10. Spinello, R., & Bottis, M. (2009). A defense of intellectual property rights. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Strauss, L. (1950). Natural right and history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Yen, A. (1990). Restoring the natural law: Copyright as labor and possession. 51 Ohio State Law Journal 517.Google Scholar
  13. Zycher, B., & DiMasi, J. (2006). The truth about drug innovation. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; available at http: www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_06.htm.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carroll School of Management, Boston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations