Editing Intellectual property (section)

==Criticisms==
{{Further|Criticism of patents|Opposition to copyright}}
{{split|Criticism of intellectual property|date=June 2021|discuss=Talk:Intellectual property#Split proposal}}

[[File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg|thumb|Demonstration in [[Sweden]] in support of [[file sharing]], 2006]]
[[File:GlamCamp NY Kippelboy nina Paley (2).JPG|thumb|"Copying is not theft!" badge with a character resembling [[Mickey Mouse]] in reference to the "in popular culture" rationale behind the [[Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act]] of 1998]]

===The term "intellectual property"===
Criticism of the term ''intellectual property'' ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract overreach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like ''property'' and ''rights'' in fashions that contradict practice and law. Many detractors think this term specially serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise abusing related legislations, and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc.<ref>{{cite web|title=If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458/if-intellectual-property-is-neither-intellectual-property-what-is-it.shtml|author1=Mike Masnick|author-link1=Mike Masnick|date=6 March 2008|website=techdirt.com|publisher=[[Techdirt]]|access-date=17 August 2014}}</ref>

[[Free Software Foundation]] founder [[Richard Stallman]] argues that, although the term ''intellectual property'' is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights".<ref name="mirage">{{cite web|title=Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html|first=Richard M.|last=Stallman|author-link=Richard M. Stallman|website=GNU |publisher=Free Software Foundation, Inc.|access-date=28 March 2008}}</ref> Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term. He argues that, "to avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of 'intellectual property'."<ref name="words-to-avoid">{{cite web|title=Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty|last=Stallman|first=Richard M.|author-link=Richard M. Stallman|website=gnu|publisher=The GNU Project|access-date=1 December 2016}}</ref>

Similarly, economists [[Michele Boldrin|Boldrin]] and [[David K. Levine|Levine]] prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more appropriate and clear definition of the concept, which, they argue, is very dissimilar from property rights.<ref>Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. [http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm Against intellectual monopoly] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171206094352/http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm |date=6 December 2017 }}. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.</ref> They further argued that "stronger patents do little or nothing to encourage innovation", mainly explained by its tendency to create market monopolies, thereby restricting further innovations and technology transfer.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A Model of Discovery |url=http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/aea_pp09.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809070301/http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/aea_pp09.pdf |archive-date=9 August 2017 |access-date=1 September 2022}}</ref>

On the assumption that intellectual property rights are actual rights, Stallman says that this claim does not live to the historical intentions behind these laws, which in the case of copyright served as a censorship system, and later on, a regulatory model for the printing press that may have benefited authors incidentally, but never interfered with the freedom of average readers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/copyright.html|title=copyright and globalization in the age of computer networks|date=19 April 2001 |access-date=21 October 2015|website=mit.edu|last=Stallman|first=Richard |author-link=Richard Stallman |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150302072256/http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/copyright.html |archive-date=2 March 2015}}</ref> Still referring to copyright, he cites legal literature such as the United States Constitution and [[case law]] to demonstrate that the law is meant to be an optional and experimental bargain to temporarily trade property rights and free speech for public, not private, benefits in the form of increased artistic production and knowledge. He mentions that "if copyright were a natural right nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Misinterpreting Copyright|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html|last=Stallman|first=Richard|author-link=Richard Stallman|website=gnu.org|access-date=21 October 2015}}</ref>

Law professor, writer and political activist [[Lawrence Lessig]], along with many other [[copyleft]] and free software activists, has criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original).<ref name="lessigperpetual" /><ref>{{cite news|title="Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism|last=Doctorow|first=Cory |author-link=Cory Doctorow|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property|date=21 February 2008 |access-date=23 February 2008}}</ref> Other arguments along these lines claim that unlike the situation with tangible property, there is [[artificial scarcity|no natural scarcity]] of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. [[Stephan Kinsella]] has objected to ''intellectual property'' on the grounds that the word "property" implies scarcity, which is not applicable to ideas.<ref>Stephan Kinsella (2001) [https://cdn.mises.org/15_2_1.pdf Against Intellectual Property] Journal of Libertarian Studies 15(2):1–53</ref>

Entrepreneur and politician [[Rick Falkvinge]] and [[hacker]] Alexandre Oliva have independently compared George Orwell's fictional dialect [[Newspeak]] to the terminology used by intellectual property supporters as a linguistic weapon to shape public opinion regarding copyright debate and [[digital rights management]] (DRM).<ref>{{cite web|title=Language Matters: Framing The Copyright Monopoly So We Can Keep Our Liberties|url=http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/|author1=Rick Falkvinge|author-link1=Rick Falkvinge|date=14 July 2013|website=torrentfreak.com|url-status=dead|access-date=17 August 2014|archive-date=4 June 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140604193406/http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author1=Alexandre Oliva |author-link1=Alexandre Oliva|title=1984+30: GNU speech to defeat e-newspeak|url=http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/1984+30.en.pdf |access-date=17 August 2014}}</ref>

====Alternative terms====
In [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] jurisdictions, intellectual property has often been referred to as intellectual rights, traditionally a somewhat broader concept that has included [[moral rights]] and other personal protections that cannot be bought or sold. Use of the term ''intellectual rights'' has declined since the early 1980s, as use of the term ''intellectual property'' has increased. Alternative terms ''monopolies on information'' and ''intellectual monopoly'' have emerged among those who argue against the ''property'' or ''intellect'' or ''rights'' assumptions, notably [[Richard Stallman]]. The [[backronym]]s ''intellectual protectionism'' and ''intellectual poverty'',<ref>Stephan Kinsella for Ludwig von Mises Institute blog, 6 January 2011. [https://web.archive.org/web/20120709151150/http://archive.mises.org/15240/intellectual-poverty/ Intellectual Poverty]</ref> whose initials are also ''IP'', have also found supporters, especially among those who have used the backronym ''[[Opposition to digital rights management|digital restrictions management]]''.<ref>[http://drm.info/ Official drm.info site] run by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=What is DRM?|url=http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management|website=defectivebydesign|publisher=Defective by Design|access-date=17 August 2015}}</ref> The argument that an intellectual property right should (in the interests of better balancing of relevant private and public interests) be termed an ''intellectual monopoly privilege'' (IMP) has been advanced by several academics including Birgitte Andersen<ref>Birgitte Andersen. "'Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege: Which One Should Patent Analysts Focus On?" CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL SOBRE SISTEMAS DE INOVAÇÃO E ESTRATÉGIAS DE DESENVOLVIMENTO PARA O TERCEIRO MILÊNIO. Nov 2003</ref> and [[Thomas Faunce]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Martin|first1=G|last2=Sorenson|first2=C|last3=Faunce|first3=TA|year=2007|title=Balancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need for essential medicines|journal=Globalization and Health|volume=3|issue=1|page=4|doi=10.1186/1744-8603-3-4|quote=Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs) (which the third author considers are more accurately described as intellectual monopoly privileges (IMPs)) of pharmaceutical companies, with the need to ensure access to essential medicines in developing countries is one of the most pressing challenges facing international policy makers today.|pmid=17565684|pmc=1904211|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Objections to overly broad intellectual property laws===
[[File:Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg|thumb|The [[free-culture movement]] champions the production of [[Free content|content]] [[Information wants to be free|that bears little or no restrictions]].]]
Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the [[free-culture movement]], point at intellectual monopolies as harming health (in the case of [[pharmaceutical patent]]s), preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses,<ref>{{cite web|first=Birgitte |last=Andersen |url=https://redesist.ie.ufrj.br/globelics/pdfs/GLOBELICS_0050_Andersen.pdf |title='Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege': Which One Should Patent Analysts Focus On? |website=RedeSist.ie.ufrj.br |location=Conferência Internacional Sobre Sistemas De Inovação E Estratégias De Desenvolvimento Para O Terceiro Milênio |date=November 2003}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Martin|first1=G|last2=Sorenson|first2=C|last3=Faunce|first3=TA|year=2007|title=Editorial: Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs)|journal=Globalization and Health|volume=3|issue=1|page=4|doi=10.1186/1744-8603-3-4|pmid=17565684|pmc=1904211|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>On patents – {{cite web|title=Protecting Freedom In The Patent System: The Public Patent Foundation's Mission and Activities|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0chez_Jf5A|author=Daniel B. Ravicher|date=6 August 2008|website=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Authors@Google: Joseph Stiglitz – Making Globalization Work.|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzhD7KVs-R4#t=16m05s| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211028/UzhD7KVs-R4| archive-date=28 October 2021|last=Stiglitz|first=Joseph|author-link=Joseph Stiglitz|date=13 October 2006|website=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref> and argue that ever-expansive monopolies in the form of [[copyright extension]]s, [[software patent]]s, and [[business method patent]]s harm the public interest. More recently, scientists and engineers are expressing concern that [[patent thicket]]s are undermining technological development even in high-tech fields like [[nanotechnology]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/stallmans-got-company-researcher-wants-nanotech-patent-moratorium/ |title=Stallman's got company: Researcher wants nanotech patent moratorium |last=Timmer |first=John |date=21 November 2012 |website=[[Ars Technica]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/23/professor-seeks-nanotech-patent-moratorium |title=Freeze on nanotechnology patents proposed to help grow the sector |last=Timmer |first=John |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140302113908/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/23/professor-seeks-nanotech-patent-moratorium |archive-date=2 March 2014 |url-status=dead |website=Wired.co.uk |date=23 November 2012}}</ref> [[Petra Moser]] has asserted that historical analysis suggests that intellectual property laws may harm innovation:<blockquote>Overall, the weight of the existing historical evidence suggests that patent policies, which grant strong intellectual property rights to early generations of inventors, may discourage innovation. On the contrary, policies that encourage the diffusion of ideas and modify patent laws to facilitate entry and encourage competition may be an effective mechanism to encourage innovation.<ref>Moser, Petra. 2013. "Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1): 23–44.</ref></blockquote>

In support of that argument, [[Jörg Baten]], Nicola Bianchi and Petra Moser<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Baten|first1=Jörg|last2=Bianchi|first2=Nicola|last3=Moser|first3=Petra|title=Compulsory licensing and innovation–Historical evidence from German patents after WWI|journal=Journal of Development Economics|year=2017|volume=126|pages=231–242|doi=10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017.01.002|doi-access=free}}</ref> find historical evidence that especially compulsory licensing—which allows governments to license patents without the consent of patent-owners—encouraged invention in Germany in the early 20th century by increasing the threat of competition in fields with low pre-existing levels of competition. [[Peter Drahos]] notes, "Property rights confer authority over resources. When authority is granted to the few over resources on which the many depend, the few gain power over the goals of the many. This has consequences for both political and economic freedom within a society."<ref>{{cite book|first1=Peter |last1=Drahos |first2=John |last2=Braithwaite |url=http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/pdrahos/books/Information%20Feudalism.pdf |title=Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? |publisher=Earthscan Publications |year=2002 |website=anu.edu.au |isbn=978-1-85383-922-1 |archive-date=14 August 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080814200637/http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/pdrahos/books/Information%20Feudalism.pdf |url-status=dead}}</ref>{{rp|13}}

The [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO) recognizes that conflicts may exist between respecting  and implementing current intellectual property systems and other human rights.<ref>{{cite web|title=Human Rights and Intellectual Property: An Overview|url=http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/|author=WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization|website=wipo|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111022125749/http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/|archive-date=22 October 2011|access-date=25 October 2011}}</ref> In 2001 the UN [[Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]] issued a document called "Human rights and intellectual property" that argued that intellectual property tends to be governed by economic goals when it should be viewed primarily as a social product; in order to serve human well-being, intellectual property systems must respect and conform to human rights laws. According to the Committee, when systems fail to do so, they risk infringing upon the human right to food and health, and to cultural participation and scientific benefits.<ref>{{cite web|author=UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights |location=Geneva |website=www2.ohchr.org |url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/statements/E.C.12.2001.15HRIntel-property.pdf |title=Human rights and intellectual property |date=14 December 2001 |id=E/C.12/2001/15}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Chapman|first=Audrey R.|title=The Human Rights Implications of Intellectual Property Protection|journal=Journal of International Economic Law|date=December 2002|volume=5|issue=4|pages=861–882|doi=10.1093/jiel/5.4.861}}</ref> In 2004, the General Assembly of WIPO adopted ''The Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization'' which argues that WIPO should "focus more on the needs of developing countries, and to view IP as one of many tools for development—not as an end in itself".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html |title=Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization |website=CPTech.org}}</ref>

Ethical problems are most pertinent when socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines are given IP protection. While the application of IP rights can allow companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of production in order to recoup the costs of research and development, the price may exclude from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product, in this case a life-saving drug.<ref name=Sonderholm>{{Cite journal|doi=10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00358.x|title=Ethical Issues Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights|journal=Philosophy Compass|volume=5|issue=12|pages=1107–1115|year=2010|last=Sonderholm|first=Jorn}}</ref> "An IPR driven regime is therefore not a regime that is conductive to the investment of R&D of products that are socially valuable to predominately poor populations".<ref name=Sonderholm />{{rp|1108–9}} [[Libertarian]]s have [[Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property|differing views on intellectual property]].<ref>{{cite web |last=D'Amato |first=David |title=Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property: Rothbard, Tucker, Spooner, and Rand |url=https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-views-intellectual-property-rothbard-tucker-spooner-rand |website=Libertarianism.org |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=2 January 2023}}</ref> [[Stephan Kinsella]], an [[anarcho-capitalist]] on the [[right-wing of libertarianism]],<ref>{{cite web|first=Stephan |last=Kinsella |url=https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/stephan-kinsella/what-it-means-to-be-an-anarcho-capitalist/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180415041048/https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/stephan-kinsella/what-it-means-to-be-an-anarcho-capitalist/ |title=What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist |website=LewRockwell.com |date=20 January 2004 |archive-date=15 April 2018 |access-date=4 August 2018}}</ref> argues against intellectual property because allowing property rights in ideas and information creates [[artificial scarcity]] and infringes on the right to own tangible property. Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:<blockquote>[I]magine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy&mdash;let's call him Galt-Magnon&mdash;decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mises.org/books/against.pdf |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080730030236/https://mises.org/books/against.pdf |archive-date=30 July 2008 |work=Ludwig von Mises Institute |first=N. Stephan |last=Kinsella |title=Against Intellectual property |year=2008 |page=44}}</ref></blockquote>

[[Thomas Jefferson]] once said in a letter to Isaac McPherson on 13 August 1813:
<blockquote>If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his [[candle|taper]] at mine, receives light without darkening me.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html |title=Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson |date=13 August 1813 |website=press-pubs.uchicago.edu}}</ref></blockquote>

In 2005, the [[Royal Society of Arts]] launched the [[Adelphi Charter]], aimed at creating an international policy statement to frame how governments should make balanced intellectual property law.<ref>{{cite web|last=Boyle |first=James |date=14 October 2005 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/oct/14/highereducation.uk |title=Protecting the public domain |work=The Guardian}}</ref> Another aspect of current U.S. Intellectual Property legislation is its focus on individual and joint works; thus, copyright protection can only be obtained in 'original' works of authorship. Critics like Philip Bennet argue that this does not provide adequate protection against [[cultural appropriation]] of indigenous knowledge, for which a [[indigenous intellectual property|collective IP regime]] is needed.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Philip|last=Bennet|title=Native Americans and Intellectual Property: the Necessity of Implementing Collective Ideals into Current United States Intellectual Property Laws|year=2009|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1498783 |ssrn=1498783 |website=SSRN |ssrn-access=free |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1498783 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231126150854/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1498783 |archive-date=26 November 2023 }}</ref> Intellectual property law has been criticized as not recognizing new forms of art such as the [[remix culture]], whose participants often commit what technically constitutes violations of such laws, creation works such as [[anime music video]]s and others, or are otherwise subject to unnecessary burdens and limitations which prevent them from fully expressing themselves.<ref name="JemielniakPrzegalinska20202">{{cite book|author1=Dariusz Jemielniak|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yLDMDwAAQBAJ|title=Collaborative Society|author2=Aleksandra Przegalinska|date=18 February 2020|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-35645-9}}</ref>{{Rp|70}}<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Fiesler|first1=Casey|last2=Feuston|first2=Jessica L.|last3=Bruckman|first3=Amy S.|title=Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing |chapter=Understanding Copyright Law in Online Creative Communities |date=28 February 2015|chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675234|series=CSCW '15|location=Vancouver, BC, Canada|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|pages=116–129|doi=10.1145/2675133.2675234|isbn=978-1-4503-2922-4|s2cid=28669082}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Freund|first=Katharina|date=1 August 2016|title="Fair use is legal use": Copyright negotiations and strategies in the fan-vidding community|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814555952|journal=New Media & Society|language=en|volume=18|issue=7|pages=1347–1363|doi=10.1177/1461444814555952|s2cid=11258627|issn=1461-4448}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Allen|first=Peter James|date=24 August 2008|title=Rip, mix, burn ... sue ... ad infinitum: The effects of deterrence vs voluntary cooperation on non-commercial online copyright infringing behaviour|url=https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2073|journal=First Monday|language=en|doi=10.5210/fm.v13i9.2073|issn=1396-0466 |doi-access= free}}</ref>

===Objections to the expansion in nature and scope of intellectual property laws===
[[File:Tom Bell's graph showing extension of U.S. copyright term over time.svg|thumb|Expansion of U.S. copyright law (assuming authors create their works by age 35 and live for seventy years)]]

Other criticism of intellectual property law concerns the expansion of intellectual property, both in duration and in scope. As scientific knowledge has expanded and allowed new industries to arise in fields such as biotechnology and nanotechnology, originators of technology have sought IP protection for the new technologies. Patents have been granted for living organisms,<ref>Council for Responsible Genetics, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20111002092235/http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomics/crg.html DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms]". Retrieved 2008.12.18.</ref> and in the United States, [[Plant breeders' rights|certain living organisms]] have been patentable for over a century.<ref>Plant Patents [https://web.archive.org/web/19990220172601/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/ USPTO.gov]</ref>

The increase in terms of protection is particularly seen in relation to copyright, which has recently been the subject of serial extensions [[Copyright Term Extension Act|in the United States]] and [[Copyright Duration Directive|in Europe]].<ref name="lessigperpetual">{{cite web|title=Against perpetual copyright|url=http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Against_perpetual_copyright|website=wiki.lessig.org|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091103224919/http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Against_perpetual_copyright|archive-date=3 November 2009}}</ref><ref>''E.g.'', the U.S. [[Copyright Term Extension Act]], Pub.L. 105–298.</ref><ref>Mark Helprin, Op-ed: [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20helprin.html A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?] ''The New York Times'', 20 May 2007.</ref><ref>''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'' [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186 (2003)]</ref><ref name="td_confused">{{cite web|title=Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070521/015928.shtml|last=Masnick|first=Mike|date=21 May 2007|website=techdirt|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090907142130/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070521/015928.shtml|archive-date=7 September 2009}}</ref> With no need for registration or copyright notices, this is thought to have led to an increase in [[orphan work]]s (copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be contacted), a problem that has been noticed and addressed by governmental bodies around the world.<ref>Library of Congress Copyright Office [http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/77fr64555.pdf Docket No. 2012–12 Orphan Works and Mass Digitization] Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 204. Monday, 22 October 2012. Notices. PP 64555–64561; see p 64555 first column for international efforts and 3rd column for description of the problem.</ref>

Also with respect to copyright, the American film industry helped to change the social construct of intellectual property via its trade organization, the [[Motion Picture Association]] (MPA). In amicus briefs in important cases, in lobbying before Congress, and in its statements to the public, the MPAA has advocated strong protection of intellectual property rights. In framing its presentations, the association has claimed that people are entitled to the property that is produced by their labor. Additionally Congress's awareness of the position of the United States as the world's largest producer of films has made it convenient to expand the conception of intellectual property.<ref>Dennis Wharton, "MPAA's Rebel With Cause Fights for Copyright Coin", Variety (3 August 1992), Vol. 348, No. 2, p. 18.</ref> These doctrinal reforms have further strengthened the industry, lending the MPAA even more power and authority.<ref>William W. Fisher III, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/history.html The Growth of Intellectual Property:A History of the Ownership of Ideas in the United States] Eigentumskulturen im Vergleich (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999)</ref>

The growth of the [[Internet]], and particularly distributed search engines like [[Kazaa]] and [[Gnutella]], have represented a challenge for copyright policy. The [[Recording Industry Association of America]], in particular, has been on the front lines of the fight against [[copyright infringement]], which the industry calls "piracy". The industry has had victories against some services, including a highly publicized case against the file-sharing company [[Napster]], and some people have been prosecuted for sharing files in violation of copyright. The electronic age has seen an increase in the attempt to use software-based DRM tools to restrict the copying and use of digitally based works. Laws such as the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] have been enacted that use criminal law to prevent any circumvention of software used to enforce DRM systems. Equivalent provisions, to prevent circumvention of copyright protection have existed in EU for some time, and are being expanded in, for example, Article&nbsp;6 and 7 the [[Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001|Copyright Directive]]. Other examples are Article&nbsp;7 of the Software Directive of 1991 (91/250/EEC), and the [[Conditional Access Directive]] of 1998 (98/84/EEC). This can hinder legal uses, affecting [[public domain]] works, [[limitations and exceptions to copyright]], or uses allowed by the copyright holder. Some [[copyleft]] licenses, like the [[GNU GPL 3]], are designed to counter this.<ref>{{cite web|title=A Quick Guide to GPLv3|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html|last=Smith|first=Brett|date=2007–2010|website=gnu|publisher=[[Free Software Foundation]]|access-date=15 February 2013}}</ref> Laws may permit circumvention under specific conditions, such as when it is necessary to achieve interoperability with the circumventor's program, or for [[accessibility]] reasons; however, distribution of circumvention tools or instructions may be illegal.

In the context of trademarks, this expansion has been driven by international efforts to harmonise the definition of "trademark", as exemplified by the [[TRIPS Agreement|Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]] ratified in 1994, which formalized regulations for IP rights that had been handled by common law, or not at all, in member states. Pursuant to TRIPS, any [[sign (semiotics)|sign]] which is "capable of distinguishing" the products or services of one business from the products or services of another business is capable of constituting a trademark.<ref>Katherine Beckman and Christa Pletcher (2009) [http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/files/2010/10/article.10.215.pdf Expanding Global Trademark Regulation] Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal 10(2): 215–239</ref>

===Use in corporate tax avoidance===
{{quote box
|width=26em|border=1px|align=right|bgcolor=#c6dbf7|qalign=left
|quote = Make no mistake: the headline [tax] rate is not what triggers tax evasion and aggressive tax planning.  That comes from schemes that facilitate profit shifting.
|salign=left
|source=[[Pierre Moscovici]]<br />European Commissioner for Tax<br />''Financial Times'', 11 March 2018<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/2b356956-17fc-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/2b356956-17fc-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 |archive-date=10 December 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Multinationals pay lower taxes than a decade ago|work=Financial Times|date=11 March 2018|last=Toplensky|first=Rochelle}}</ref>
}}

Intellectual property has become a core tool in corporate tax planning and [[tax avoidance]].<ref name="fordam">{{cite web|title=Intellectual Property and Tax Avoidance in Ireland|url=http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2016/08/30/ip-tax-avoidance-ireland/|date=30 August 2016|website=fordhamiplj|publisher=Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502112434/http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2016/08/30/ip-tax-avoidance-ireland/|archive-date=2 May 2019}}</ref><ref name="ucla">Intellectual property (IP) has become the leading tax-avoidance vehicle.{{cite web|title=Intellectual Property Law Solutions to Tax Avoidance|url=https://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-1-1.pdf|year=2015|website=uclalawreview|publisher=UCLA Law Review|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150316232500/http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-1-1.pdf|archive-date=16 March 2015}}</ref><ref name="lux">{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/business/2015/08/27/patently-problematic|title=Patently problematic|newspaper=The Economist|date=August 2015}}</ref> IP is a key component of the leading multinational tax avoidance [[base erosion and profit shifting]] (BEPS) tools,<ref name="tilburg">{{cite web|url=http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=143915|title=Intellectual Property Tax Planning in the light of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting|publisher=University of Tilburg|date=June 2017}}</ref><ref name="zew">{{cite web|url=http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp13078.pdf|title=Profit Shifting and "Aggressive" Tax Planning by Multinational Firms|publisher=Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)|page=3|date=October 2013}}</ref> which the OECD estimates costs $100{{nbnd}}240&nbsp;billion in lost annual tax revenues.<ref name="BEPS Background"/> In 2017–2018, both the U.S. and the EU Commission simultaneously decided to depart from the [[Base erosion and profit shifting (OECD project)|OECD BEPS Project]] timetable, which was set up in 2013 to combat IP BEPS tax tools like the above,<ref name="BEPS Background">{{cite web|title=BEPS Project Background Brief|url=http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/background-brief-inclusive-framework-for-beps-implementation.pdf|publisher=OECD|date=January 2017}}</ref> and launch their own anti-IP BEPS tax regimes:

* U.S. [[Tax Cuts and Jobs Act]], which has several anti-IP BEPS abuse tax regimes, including GILTI tax and the BEAT tax regimes.<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Hybrid Approach: The Treatment of Foreign Profits under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act|url=https://taxfoundation.org/treatment-foreign-profits-tax-cuts-jobs-act/|publisher=Tax Foundation|date=3 May 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/trump-s-us-tax-reform-a-significant-challenge-for-ireland-1.3310866|title=Trump's US tax reform a significant challenge for Ireland|newspaper=The Irish Times|date=30 November 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/donald-trump-singles-out-ireland-in-tax-speech-1.3310149?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fdonald-trump-singles-out-ireland-in-tax-speech-1.3310149|title=Donald Trump singles out Ireland in tax speech|newspaper=The Irish Times|date=29 November 2017}}</ref>
* EU Commission 2018 Digital Services Tax, which is less advanced than the U.S. TCJA, but does seek to override IP BEPS tools via a quasi-VAT.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-ireland-faces-a-fight-on-the-corporate-tax-front-1.3426080|title=Why Ireland faces a fight on the corporate tax front|newspaper=The Irish Times|date=14 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/eu-digital-levy-could-hit-tech-fdi-and-tax-revenue-here-36725944.html|title=EU digital levy could hit tech FDI and tax revenue here|work=Irish Independent|date=21 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-digital-tax-ireland-2-2-3918628-Mar2018/|title=What the EU's new taxes on the tech giants mean – and how they would hurt Ireland|publisher=thejournal.ie|date=24 March 2018}}</ref>

The departure of the U.S. and EU Commission from the OECD BEPS Project process, is attributed to frustrations with the rise in IP as a key BEPS tax tool, creating intangible assets, which are then turned into royalty payment BEPS schemes (double Irish), and/or [[capital allowance]] BEPS schemes (capital allowances for intangibles).  In contrast, the OECD has spent years developing and advocating intellectual property as a legal and a GAAP accounting concept.<ref name="un1">{{cite web|url=https://www.taxjustice.net/2017/09/11/new-un-tax-handbook-sets-lower-income-countries-oecd-beps/|title=New UN tax handbook: Lower-income countries vs OECD BEPS failure|publisher=Tax Justice Network|date=11 September 2017}}</ref>

=== Gender gap in intellectual property ===
Women have historically been underrepresented in the creation and ownership of intellectual property covered by intellectual property rights. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, women composed only 16.5% of patent holders even as recently as 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|last=WIPO|first=World Intellectual Property Organization|date=8 March 2021|title=Gender Equality, Diversity and Intellectual Property|url=https://www.wipo.int/women-and-ip/en/|access-date=7 June 2021}}</ref> This disparity is the result of several factors including systemic bias, sexism and discrimination within the intellectual property space, underrepresentation within [[Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics|STEM]], and barriers to access of necessary finance and knowledge in order to obtain intellectual property rights, among other reasons.<ref>{{Cite web|last=WIPO|first=World Intellectual Property Organization|date=21 May 2021|title=Closing the Gender Gap in IP|url=https://www.wipo.int/women-and-ip/en/news/2021/news_0005.html|access-date=7 June 2021}}</ref>

=== Global IP ratchet and developing countries ===
The global increase in intellectual property protection is sometimes referred to as a global IP ratchet in which a spiral of bilateral and multilateral agreements result in growing obligations where new agreements never recede from existing standards and very often further heighten them.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=Cheng |first=Wenting |title=China in Global Governance of Intellectual Property: Implications for Global Distributive Justice |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |year=2023 |isbn=978-3-031-24369-1 |series=Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies series}}</ref>{{Rp|page=7}} The global IP ratchet has limited the freedom of [[Developing country|developing countries]] to set their own IP standards.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=7}} Developing countries' lack of bargaining power relative to the developed countries driving the global IP ratchet means that developing countries' ability to regulate intellectual property to advance domestic interests is eroding.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=6–7}}