JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Nelson, Dustin S.
Data de Publicação: 2023
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123
Resumo: Intellectual property (IP) rights represent an anomaly within a free market economic system. IP rights, that is, necessarily constrain the actions of individuals within the market. In response to this anomaly, IP scholars have offered various justifications for the application of such supposed constraints within a free market economy. Chief among these justifications is the widespread appeal to utilitarianism via incentivization. Yet, it is not exactly clear that this incentivization is actually producing the benefits required for the utilitarian justification. Rather than abandoning the IP system, however, some have simply suggested an alternative justification. These scholars argue that IP rights are actual, moral rights that deserve protection as moral rights. Further, scholars argue that any distributional inequality generated by the IP system are nonetheless justified under Rawls’s theory of justice. I argue, however, that Rawls’s theory of justice cannot “justify” a selective, IP regime.
id RCAP_33bbf928c304c9ad4c5f63caafedc742
oai_identifier_str oai:journals.uminho.pt:article/5313
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYDA JUSTIÇA NA PROPRIEDADE INTELECTUALOriginal ArticlesIntellectual property (IP) rights represent an anomaly within a free market economic system. IP rights, that is, necessarily constrain the actions of individuals within the market. In response to this anomaly, IP scholars have offered various justifications for the application of such supposed constraints within a free market economy. Chief among these justifications is the widespread appeal to utilitarianism via incentivization. Yet, it is not exactly clear that this incentivization is actually producing the benefits required for the utilitarian justification. Rather than abandoning the IP system, however, some have simply suggested an alternative justification. These scholars argue that IP rights are actual, moral rights that deserve protection as moral rights. Further, scholars argue that any distributional inequality generated by the IP system are nonetheless justified under Rawls’s theory of justice. I argue, however, that Rawls’s theory of justice cannot “justify” a selective, IP regime.Os direitos de propriedade intelectual (PI) representam uma anomalia dentro de um sistema económico de livre mercado. Isto é, os direitos de PI necessariamente restringem as ações dos indivíduos no mercado. Em resposta a essa anomalia, os estudiosos da PI ofereceram várias justificações para a aplicação de tais supostas restrições numa economia de mercado livre. A principal forma de justificação funda-se na popular visão utilitarista sobre a importância dos incentivos. No entanto, não está perfeitamente claro que esses incentivos estejam realmente a produzir os benefícios necessários para fundamentar a justificação utilitarista. Em vez de abandonar o sistema de PI, no entanto, alguns autores simplesmente sugeriram uma justificação alternativa. Esses estudiosos argumentam que os direitos de PI são verdadeiros direitos morais que merecem proteção enquanto direitos morais. Além disso, os estudiosos argumentam que qualquer desigualdade distributiva gerada pelo sistema de PI é justificada pela teoria da justiça de Rawls. No entanto, eu argumento que a teoria da justiça de Rawls não pode "justificar" um regime seletivo de PI.Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho2023-09-29info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123eng2184-25822184-2574Nelson, Dustin S.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-01-29T10:56:40Zoai:journals.uminho.pt:article/5313Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T01:58:42.690181Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DA JUSTIÇA NA PROPRIEDADE INTELECTUAL
title JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
spellingShingle JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Nelson, Dustin S.
Original Articles
title_short JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
title_full JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
title_fullStr JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
title_full_unstemmed JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
title_sort JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
author Nelson, Dustin S.
author_facet Nelson, Dustin S.
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Nelson, Dustin S.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Original Articles
topic Original Articles
description Intellectual property (IP) rights represent an anomaly within a free market economic system. IP rights, that is, necessarily constrain the actions of individuals within the market. In response to this anomaly, IP scholars have offered various justifications for the application of such supposed constraints within a free market economy. Chief among these justifications is the widespread appeal to utilitarianism via incentivization. Yet, it is not exactly clear that this incentivization is actually producing the benefits required for the utilitarian justification. Rather than abandoning the IP system, however, some have simply suggested an alternative justification. These scholars argue that IP rights are actual, moral rights that deserve protection as moral rights. Further, scholars argue that any distributional inequality generated by the IP system are nonetheless justified under Rawls’s theory of justice. I argue, however, that Rawls’s theory of justice cannot “justify” a selective, IP regime.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023-09-29
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123
url https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2184-2582
2184-2574
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799137071331278848