The Type-Token Distinction and Four Problems with Propertarian IP Justifications
Tóm tắt
Propertarian justifications of intellectual property postulate the appropriation of various entities, often called patterns, designs, or technologies. These must be immaterial and should not be confused with material structures that embody them. Hence two classes of objects are distinguished. It is convenient to refer to them as types and tokens. The type must involve a condition defining which material structures should be considered its tokens. For an IP regime to be economically meaningful one must necessarily appropriate types in a way which restricts access to wide classes of similar, non-identical material structures. Therefore, type conditions must be general. They must define, with a margin of tolerance, only certain aspects of the structure, leaving others unspecified. Consequently, the relationship between such types and tokens is of many-to-many variety. The recognition of these facts leads to four problems in justifying intellectual property on propertarian grounds. The first problem is to demonstrate possession of the type in the pre-legal situation. The second one is to explain, why boundaries of an appropriated type should be placed in a particular location. The third problem is to avoid claim deadlocks resulting from conflicts of rights generated by separate overlapping types. The fourth problem is to justify why ownership of the type should entail the control over other separate entities—that is tokens. In the propertarian framework grounded in the pre-legal state of nature, satisfactory solutions do not seem to have been proposed for any of these four problems.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Attas D (2008) Lockean justifications of intellectual Property. In: Gosseries A, Strowel A, Marciano A (eds) Intellectual property and theories of justice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 29–56
Becker LC (1977) Property rights: philosophic foundations. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Bell TW (2007) Copyright as intellectual property privilege. Syracuse Law Rev 58:523–546
Biron L (2010) Two challenges to the idea of intellectual property. Monist 93:382–394
Błaszczyk C (2018) Propertarianistyczne teorie prawa autorskiego. C.H. Beck, Warsaw.
Błaszczyk C (2020) Lockean intellectual property refuted. Sci Polit XXXII(63):161–186
Boldrin M, Levine DK (2008) Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bouckaert B (1990) What is property ? Harvard J Law Public Policy 13(3):775–816
Bouillon H (2009) Note on intellectual property and externalities. In: Hulsmann JG, Kinsella NS (eds) Property, freedom and society: essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, pp 149–160
Breakey H (2010) Natural intellectual property rights and the public domain. Mod Law Rev 73:208–239
Cwik B (2016) Property rights in non-rival goods. J Polit Philos 24(4):470–486
Dodd J (2000) Musical works as eternal types. Br J Aesteth 40:424–440
Dodd J (2007) Works of music: an essay in ontology. University Press, Oxford
Dominiak Ł (2014) Anarcho-capitalism, aggression and copyright. Polit Dial 16:37–47
Drahos P (1996) A philosophy of intellectual property. Ashgate, Dartmouth
Gamrot W (2021) On type creation and ownership. Polit Dial 30:187–200
Gordon WJ (1993) A property right in self-expression: equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law J 102:1533–1609
Gordon WJ (2003) Intellectual property law. In: Cane P, Tushnet M (eds) Oxford handbook of legal studies. University Press, Oxford, pp 617–646
Himma KE (2008) The justification for intellectual property: contemporary philosophical disputes. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 59(7):1143–1161
Hoppe H-H (1989) A theory of socialism and capitalism. Kluwer, Boston
Hughes J (1988) The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law J 77:330–350
Kinsella NS (2008) Against intellectual property. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
Moglen E (1999) Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright. http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.html [2021-04-20]
Moore A (1997) Lockean theory of intellectual property. Hamline Law Rev 21:65–108
Moore A (2003) Intellectual property, innovation and social progress: the case against incentive based arguments. Hamline Law Rev 26(3):602–630
Moore A (2012) A lockean theory of intellectual property revisited. San Diego Law Rev 49:1069–1103
Mossoff A (2012) Saving locke from Marx: the labor theory of value in intellectual property theory. Soc Philos Policy 29(2):283–317
Rand A (1986) Capitalism: the unknown ideal. Signet, New York
Risch M (2019) Abstraction, filtration and comparison in patent law. J Law Innov 1:37–64
Shaffer B (2013) A libertarian critique of intellectual property. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
Schiffrin S (2007) Intellectual Property. In: Goodin R, Pettit P, Pogge T (eds) A companion to contemporary political philosophy. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 653–668
Wilson J (2009) Could there be a right to own intellectual property ? Law Philos 28:393–427
Wilson J (2010) Ontology and the regulation of intellectual property. Monist 93:450–463
Wiśniewski JB (2020) On the impossibility of intellectual property. Q J Aust Econ 23(1):33–45
Wysocki I (2014) The rebuttal of pro-IP arguments. Polit Dial 17:33–39
Yen AC (1990) Restoring the natural law: copyright as labor and possession. Ohio State Law J 51:517–559
Zemer L (2006) The making of a new copyright Lockean. Harvard J Law Public Policy 29(3):891–947