Editing Intellectual property (section)

===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>