Intellectual Rights & Information Exchanges


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

Intellectual Rights & Information Exchanges

  2. 2. PHILIPPE AIGRAIN’S APPROACH <ul><li>Philippe contrasts the abstract principles and absolute rights involved in intellectual property rights </li></ul><ul><li>Philippe proposes a framework for positive intellectual rights and information exchange that differentiates between varieties of intellectual property (according to how they can be produced, used and exchanged) </li></ul><ul><li>In doing so, Philippe believes it will truly serve creators without restricting unduly information exchanges </li></ul>
  3. 3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY <ul><li>Terms: Intellectual property (IP), intellectual rights or intellectual capital </li></ul><ul><li>Two branches: Industrial property and copyright / patent / trademark </li></ul><ul><li>Creations of the mind – both artistic and commercial </li></ul><ul><li>Owners are granted rights to intangible assets – musical, literary, artistic works; ideas, discoveries, inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual property includes copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets </li></ul>
  4. 4. INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS <ul><li>Three different kinds of capital and rights are involved: </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity (individual capital) which implies rights to benefit from one's free expression </li></ul><ul><li>Invention (instructional capital) which implies rights to benefit from having created some more efficient device or process </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation (social capital) which implies rights not to have one's name or specific distinguishing tagline or ethic sullied by imitators or rivals </li></ul>
  5. 5. INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS & INFORMATION EXCHANGE – THE INTERNET REVOLUTION <ul><li>With new technology comes new IP problems </li></ul><ul><li>Old rules no longer apply to the new, and ever changing, technology </li></ul><ul><li>Due to the Internet explosion two contradictory processes were set into motion in the 1980s </li></ul>
  6. 6. POSITIVE INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS <ul><li>Positive Intellectual Rights are rights which permit or oblige action either legally or morally </li></ul><ul><li>They are modes of action, rather than inaction </li></ul><ul><li>The original purpose of copyright was to ensure reward to creators, not to set an unlimited possibility for rights owners to decide how copyrighted items can be used </li></ul><ul><li>The change in the approach can create adverse affects due to restrictions </li></ul>
  7. 7. PUBLIC DOMAIN <ul><li>A range of abstract materials i.e. intellectual property are considered part of the public domain. The term indicates that the materials are public property and are available for anyone to use for any purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Public Domain is defined in contrast to copyright, patents and trademarks </li></ul><ul><li>What should be considered for public domain? </li></ul><ul><li>Free software has become the only truly accessible public domain </li></ul><ul><li>People are calling for a creation of a real public space / domain for information of various types with positive intellectual rights </li></ul>
  8. 8. POSITIVE INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS AND INFORMATION EXCHANGES <ul><li>Intellectual property now focuses on how to limit or restrict the usage of intellectual entities such as information, media contents, software, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>The new approach sets at its basis positive intellectual rights that are defined to enable a wide societal production and exchange of intellectual entities </li></ul><ul><li>Without intellectual property there is a risk of losing the benefits resulting from a greater plurality of creators and information sources </li></ul><ul><li>Differentiate between varieties of intellectual properties – serves creators without restricting unduly information exchanges </li></ul>
  9. 9. PROBLEMS WITH COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS <ul><li>Dichotomy between useful and beneficial restrictions and too harsh of restrictions </li></ul><ul><li>Destruction of the commons with too harsh of IP laws </li></ul><ul><li>Public Domain – what belongs there and what does not? </li></ul><ul><li>Incentives for creativity – will become scarce if the restrictions are too loose or too harsh </li></ul><ul><li>Private parties who invest in intellectual property will lose incentive to invest lessening the creative playing field </li></ul><ul><li>Whether and how limitation to knowledge in public domain should occur </li></ul><ul><li>Commons based peer production – witness a restriction of innovation and its usage - “tragedy of enclosures” </li></ul>
  10. 10. GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH <ul><li>Three years ago, the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and a handful of authors and publishers filed a class action lawsuit against Google Book Search </li></ul><ul><li>It was claimed that the Google project broadly infringed the copyrights of numerous companies and individuals for Google's own commercial purposes </li></ul><ul><li>Google has no permission from copyright owners to do this for other works. Google's agreements with libraries are not enough - the libraries do not own the copyrights. Thus the simple infringement claim is stated by Nick Taylor, President of the Authors' Guild: &quot;This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law. It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>The company claims that its commercial use of the property of others is &quot;fair use,&quot; permitted by the Copyright Act because the searching public will only see limited portions of the work when their search is completed. Besides, Google claims, copyright owners should like our plan - it will distribute works and benefit the public interest. If you don't like it, you should tell us. Each copyright owner who objects will have her rights respected. </li></ul><ul><li>28 October 2008 – Class action lawsuit settled </li></ul>
  11. 11. GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH – THE SETTLEMENT <ul><li>The Library Project & The Partner Program </li></ul><ul><li>How Google Book Search will change </li></ul><ul><li>Three types of Books </li></ul><ul><li>Book Rights Registry </li></ul><ul><li>Libraries and Universities </li></ul>
  12. 12. THE PIRATE BAY <ul><li>The Pirate Bay is a Swedish website that indexes, stores and tracks BitTorrent (.torrent) files </li></ul><ul><li>Initially established in November 2003 by the Swedish anti-copyright organization Piratbyrån (The Piracy Bureau), it has been operating as a separate organization since October 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>The Pirate Bay has also been involved in a number of lawsuits for piracy and infringement issues </li></ul><ul><li>According to the Los Angeles Times , The Pirate Bay is &quot;one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading&quot;, and &quot;the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright—or pro-piracy—movement” </li></ul>
  13. 13. CLASS THOUGHTS / DISCUSSION POINTS <ul><li>Do you think Google Book Search has infringed upon copyrights? Or, do you think that Google is within their rights to digitally reproduce artefacts and IP for the public domain? </li></ul><ul><li>Do you think it is “fair use?” </li></ul><ul><li>Do you think The Pirate Bay should be legal? The free distribution of music and several types of media? Or is it piracy? </li></ul><ul><li>Do you think YouTube can be compared to The Pirate Bay or something like the Google Book Search? If so, why is that not considered infringement or piracy? </li></ul><ul><li>Do you think copyright laws now help or hurt the public domain and the creative commons? </li></ul>
  14. 14. WEBSITES <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  15. 15. WEBSITES <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>