Boyle - The Public Domain Exzerpt
Aus Leowiki
(Unterschied zwischen Versionen)
| Version vom 08:36, 10. Jul 2011 (bearbeiten) 91.66.163.2 (Diskussion) ← Zum vorherigen Versionsunterschied |
Version vom 08:50, 10. Jul 2011 (bearbeiten) 91.66.163.2 (Diskussion) Zum nächsten Versionsunterschied → |
||
| Zeile 10: | Zeile 10: | ||
| == Exzerpt == | == Exzerpt == | ||
| + | * "The vast majority of this material, perhaps as much as 95 percent in the case of books, is commercially unavailable." (p. 9; Anm.: es geht um das Material im Library of Congress catalouge) | ||
| + | * "For most works, the owners expect to make all the money they are going to recoup from the work with five or ten years of exclusive rights. The rest of the copyright term is of little use to them except as a kind of lottery ticket in case the work proves to be a one-in-a-million perennial favorite." (p. 11) | ||
| + | * "Even if natural right does create the ground for the property claim, it is "social law" that shapes its contours and guarantees its stability." (p. 28) | ||
| + | * "Even within the ''droits d'auteur tradition, we see a recognition that the continuing progress of enlightenment and the sacred genius of authors might both require a certain level of freedom in knowledge inputs and a certain level of control over knowledge outputs. We see also the recognition that these two requirements are in '''fundamental tension'''. When it comes to reconciling that tension we must turn in part to utilitarian effects." (p. 34; Herv. i. Orig; Fett L.D.) | ||
| + | * "From the early days of intellectual property as we know it now, the main objection raised against it were framed in the language of free trade and "ant-monopoly." (p 36) | ||
| + | * "Look at the structure of these comments; they are framed as criticisms of intellectual property rather than defenses of the public domain or the commons, terms that simply do not appear in the debates. There is no real discussion of the world of intellectual property’s outside, its opposite. Most of these critics take as their goal the prevention or limitation of an “artificial” monopoly; without this monopoly our goal is to have a world of—what? The assumption is that we will return to a norm of freedom, but of what kind? Free trade in expression and innovation, as opposed to monopoly? Free access to expression and innovation, as opposed to access for pay? Or free access to innovation and expression in the sense of not being subject to the right of another person to pick and choose who is given access, even if all have to pay some flat fee? Or is it common ownership and control that we seek, including the communal | ||
| + | right to forbid certain kinds of uses of the shared resource? The eighteenth and nineteenth-century critics brushed over these points; but to be fair, we continue to do so today. The opposite of property, or perhaps we should say the opposites of property, are much more obscure to us than property itself. For the most part, the antimonopolist view of intellectual property makes a simple case. Monopolies are bad. Have as few as possible and make them as narrow and as short as possible. This is a fine principle, but '''it falls short of an affirmative explanation and defense of the role of the public domain or the commons in enabling creativity, culture, and science'''. That is a shame because just as intellectual property is different from tangible property, so too is its opposite, its outside. | ||
| + | What are those opposites? The two major terms in use are “the public domain” and “the commons.” Both are used in multiple ways—probably a good thing. The public domain is material that is not covered by intellectual property rights. Material might be in the public domain because it was never capable of being owned. Examples would be the English language or the formulae of Newtonian physics. Alternatively, something might be in the public domain because rights have expired. The works of Shakespeare or the patent over powered flight are examples. | ||
| == Backlinks == | == Backlinks == | ||
| [[Buchverzeichnis]] | [[Buchverzeichnis]] | ||
Version vom 08:50, 10. Jul 2011
Allgemeine Anmerkungen
- Während das Buch sowohl Patent- als auch Urheberrecht behandelt, hat es einen sehr starken US-Fokus und klammert die internationale Dimension fast völlig aus. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Diskussion des DMCA und die entsprechenden Auseinandersetzungen, die in keinster Weise die vorhergehenden Weichenstellungen auf internationaler Ebene berücksichtigen
- Über weite Strecken argumentiert Boyle mit Jefferson und bezieht sich generell sehr stark auf die US Constitution
- Interessant ist der Ansatz, die Verschärfung von IP auf den dominanten Frame der "Internet Threat" zurückzuführen.
- Drei Fallstudien:
- Kapitel 6 versucht die Geschichte eines Songs (Ray Charles "I got a women" / Kanye Wests "Gold Digger" / Legendary K.O.s "Bush doesn't like Black People") nachzuvollziehen; spannender Gedanke dabei: auch urheberrechtlich geschützte Melodien lassen sich dann ohne urheberrechtsverletzung "kopieren", wenn sich nachweisen lässt, dass sie ebenfalls auf früheren, bereits gemeinfreien Werken beruhen.
- Softwarepatente und Copyright
- Biotechnologie
Exzerpt
- "The vast majority of this material, perhaps as much as 95 percent in the case of books, is commercially unavailable." (p. 9; Anm.: es geht um das Material im Library of Congress catalouge)
- "For most works, the owners expect to make all the money they are going to recoup from the work with five or ten years of exclusive rights. The rest of the copyright term is of little use to them except as a kind of lottery ticket in case the work proves to be a one-in-a-million perennial favorite." (p. 11)
- "Even if natural right does create the ground for the property claim, it is "social law" that shapes its contours and guarantees its stability." (p. 28)
- "Even within the droits d'auteur tradition, we see a recognition that the continuing progress of enlightenment and the sacred genius of authors might both require a certain level of freedom in knowledge inputs and a certain level of control over knowledge outputs. We see also the recognition that these two requirements are in fundamental tension. When it comes to reconciling that tension we must turn in part to utilitarian effects." (p. 34; Herv. i. Orig; Fett L.D.)
- "From the early days of intellectual property as we know it now, the main objection raised against it were framed in the language of free trade and "ant-monopoly." (p 36)
- "Look at the structure of these comments; they are framed as criticisms of intellectual property rather than defenses of the public domain or the commons, terms that simply do not appear in the debates. There is no real discussion of the world of intellectual property’s outside, its opposite. Most of these critics take as their goal the prevention or limitation of an “artificial” monopoly; without this monopoly our goal is to have a world of—what? The assumption is that we will return to a norm of freedom, but of what kind? Free trade in expression and innovation, as opposed to monopoly? Free access to expression and innovation, as opposed to access for pay? Or free access to innovation and expression in the sense of not being subject to the right of another person to pick and choose who is given access, even if all have to pay some flat fee? Or is it common ownership and control that we seek, including the communal
right to forbid certain kinds of uses of the shared resource? The eighteenth and nineteenth-century critics brushed over these points; but to be fair, we continue to do so today. The opposite of property, or perhaps we should say the opposites of property, are much more obscure to us than property itself. For the most part, the antimonopolist view of intellectual property makes a simple case. Monopolies are bad. Have as few as possible and make them as narrow and as short as possible. This is a fine principle, but it falls short of an affirmative explanation and defense of the role of the public domain or the commons in enabling creativity, culture, and science. That is a shame because just as intellectual property is different from tangible property, so too is its opposite, its outside. What are those opposites? The two major terms in use are “the public domain” and “the commons.” Both are used in multiple ways—probably a good thing. The public domain is material that is not covered by intellectual property rights. Material might be in the public domain because it was never capable of being owned. Examples would be the English language or the formulae of Newtonian physics. Alternatively, something might be in the public domain because rights have expired. The works of Shakespeare or the patent over powered flight are examples.
