Mind the Gap! How the Digital Turn Upsets Intellectual Property

Original Paper


Intellectual property is one of the highly divisive issues in contemporary philosophical and political debates. The main objective of this paper is to explore some sources of tension between the formal rules of intellectual property (particularly copyright and patents) and the emerging informal norms of file sharing and open access in online environments. We look into the file sharing phenomena not only to illustrate the deepening gap between the two sets of norms, but to cast some doubt on the current regime of intellectual property as an adequate frame for the new type of interactions in online environments. Revisiting the classic Arrow–Demsetz debate about intellectual property and the epistemological issues involved in assessing institutions, we suggest that seeking out new institutional arrangements aligned with the norms-in-use seems to be a more promising strategy in the new technological setting than attempting to reinforce the current legal framework. Moreover, such a strategy is less prone to committing the so-called ‘Nirvana fallacies’. As a secondary task, we try to cast some doubt on the two most common moral justifications of intellectual property as being able to ground the full extent of the current intellectual property regime.


Intellectual property rights Copyright Digital information File sharing Social norms “Nirvana fallacy” 



This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, Project Number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-1846. We are deeply indebted to our colleagues Cristina Voinea, Anda Zahiu, Maria Banu, Ingrid Niculescu, Alexandra Oprea, Toni Gibea and especially Emilian Mihailov and Radu Uszkai. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the journal editors for their valuable feedback and suggestions.


  1. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/2144.html. Accessed March, 12 2017.
  2. Biron, L. (2010). Two challenges to the idea of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 382–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind (1st ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cwik, B. (2014). Labor as the basis for intellectual property rights. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17(4), 681–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawdy, S. L., & Bonni, J. (2012). Towards a general theory of piracy. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(3), 673–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demsetz, H. (1969). Information and efficiency: Another viewpoint. Journal of Law and Economics, 12(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge & the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eres, R., Winnifred, R. L., & Molenberghs, P. (2017). Why do people pirate? A neuroimaging investigation. Social Neuroscience, 12(4), 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferreira, L. (2002). Access to affordable HIV/AIDS drugs: The Human Rights obligations of multinational pharmaceutical corporations. Fordham Law Review, 71(3), 1133–1179.Google Scholar
  11. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. George, A. (2015). The metaphysics of intellectual property. The WIPO Journal, 7(1), 16–28.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon, W. J. (1993). A property right in self-expression: Equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law Journal, 102(7), 1533–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hales, D., & Patarin, S. (2005). How to cheat BitTorrent and why nobody does. Technical Report UBLCS-2005-12, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna.Google Scholar
  15. Hamlin, A., & Stemplowska, Z. (2012). Theory, ideal theory and the theory of ideals. Political Studies Review, 10, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hettinger, E. C. (1989). Justifying intellectual property. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(1), 31–52.Google Scholar
  17. Hull, G. (2008). Clearing the rubbish: Locke, the waste proviso, and the moral justification of intellectual property. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1082597. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1082597.
  18. Krawczyk, M., Tyrowicz, J., Kukla-Gryz, A., & Hardy, W. (2015). ‘Piracy is not theft!’ Is it just students who think so? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lambrecht, M. (2015). On water drinkers and magical springs: Challenging the Lockean proviso as a justification for copyright. Ratio Juris, 28(4), 504–520.  https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Locke, J. (1975). In P. H. Nidditch (Ed.), The Clarendon edition of the works of John Locke: An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Locke, J. (1980). In C. B. Macpherson (Ed.), Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, M. P. (2016, November 28). Fake News and the Internet Shell Game. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/opinion/fake-news-and-the-internet-shell-game.html. Accessed September, 20 2017.
  23. May, C. (1998). Capital, knowledge and ownership: The ‘information society’ and intellectual property. Information, Communication & Society, 1(3), 246–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menell, P. (2003). Intellectual property: General theories. Levine’s Working Paper Archive 618897000000000707. David K. Levine. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cla/levarc/618897000000000707.html. Accessed January, 12 2017.
  25. Moor, J. (2008). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 26–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, A. (2015). Lockean foundations of intellectual property. The WIPO Journal, 7(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  27. Mossoff, A. (2012). Saving Locke from Marx: The labor theory of value in intellectual property theory. Social Philosophy and Policy, 29(2), 283–317.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052511000288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Palmer, T. (1990). Are patents and copyrights morally justified? The philosophy of property rights and ideal objects. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 13(3), 817–865.Google Scholar
  30. Price, D. (2013). Sizing the piracy universe. Resource https://www.netnames.com/assets/shared/whitepaper/pdf/netnames-sizing-piracy-universe-FULLreport-sept2013.pdf. Accessed June, 12 2017.
  31. Sandberg, A. (2009). Intuitive pirates: Why do we accept file sharing so much? Practical Ethics - Ethics in the News. Resource http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2009/04/intuitive-pirates-why-do-we-accept-file-sharing-so-much/. Accessed May, 22 2017.
  32. Sell, S., & May, C. (2001). Moments in law: Contestation and settlement in the history of intellectual property. Review of International Political Economy, 8(3), 467–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shang, R.-A., Chen, Y.-C., & Chen, P.-C. (2008). Ethical decisions about sharing music files in the P2P environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Socaciu, E. M., & Uszkai, R. (2015). How drug patents might lead to disincentives for moral bioenhancement. Ethics in Biology, Engineering & Medicine—An International Journal, 6(1–2), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Svensson, M., & Larsson, S. (2012). Intellectual property law compliance in Europe: Illegal file sharing and the role of social norms. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1147–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tavani, H. (2005). Locke, intellectual property rights, and the information commons. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tehranian, J. (2007). Infringement nation: Copyright reform and the law/norm gap. Utah Law Review, 3, 537–549.Google Scholar
  39. Tehranian, J. (2011). Infringement nation: Copyright 2.0 and you (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thorpe, J. (2004). Some challenges for Copyright-Related quantification. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 1(1), 41–50.Google Scholar
  41. Uszkai, R. (2014). Aspecte etice ale procesului de partajare de fișiere prin protocolul BitTorrent: între proprietate intelectuală și evoluția cooperării (Doctoral Thesis). Bucharest: University of Bucharest. Library of the Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  42. Uszkai, R. (2016). Pirateria online: un tip de infracţiune fără victime. Revista de filosofie, 63(5), 597–610.Google Scholar
  43. Uszkai, R., & Vică, C. (2012). How to assess the emergence of the European pirate parties: Towards a research agenda. Sfera Politicii, 169, 46–55.Google Scholar
  44. Vică, C. (2015). Intellectual property, globalization, and left-libertarianism. Symposion, 2(3), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiens, D. (2016). Assessing ideal theories: Lessons from the theories of the second-best. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 15(2), 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yar, M. (2008). The rhetorics and myths of anti-piracy campaigns: Criminalization, Moral pedagogy and capitalist property relations in the classroom. New Media & Society, 10(4), 605–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations