数字时代的财产概念

R. Merges
{"title":"数字时代的财产概念","authors":"R. Merges","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1323424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this Essay I argue that the basic case for property is still a very strong one. Individual control over individual assets still makes sense. I defend property rights in digital creations in the face of two general scholarly critiques: The first is what I call digital determinism - the idea that the central driving force behind IP policy should be the technological imperatives of digital creation and distribution. I argue that the inherent logic of digital technology should not drive IP policy. Second, I discuss the idea that the distinctive feature of digital technology, and therefore the thing that policy should most seek to encourage, is collective creativity. I argue that individual creators are still crucial, and that IP law does not interfere with widely dispersed collective works such as Wikis. Finally, I push for recognition that IP policy should not be blinded by the promise of massive amounts of amateur content; solicitude for what I call \"creative professionals\" - people who make a living creating high-quality content - has been and must continue to be an important part of IP law.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Concept of Property in the Digital Era\",\"authors\":\"R. Merges\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1323424\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this Essay I argue that the basic case for property is still a very strong one. Individual control over individual assets still makes sense. I defend property rights in digital creations in the face of two general scholarly critiques: The first is what I call digital determinism - the idea that the central driving force behind IP policy should be the technological imperatives of digital creation and distribution. I argue that the inherent logic of digital technology should not drive IP policy. Second, I discuss the idea that the distinctive feature of digital technology, and therefore the thing that policy should most seek to encourage, is collective creativity. I argue that individual creators are still crucial, and that IP law does not interfere with widely dispersed collective works such as Wikis. Finally, I push for recognition that IP policy should not be blinded by the promise of massive amounts of amateur content; solicitude for what I call \\\"creative professionals\\\" - people who make a living creating high-quality content - has been and must continue to be an important part of IP law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":281709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intellectual Property Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intellectual Property Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1323424\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1323424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

在这篇文章中,我认为财产的基本情况仍然是非常强大的。个人控制个人资产仍然是有意义的。面对两种普遍的学术批评,我捍卫数字创作的产权:第一种是我所谓的数字决定论——知识产权政策背后的核心驱动力应该是数字创作和发行的技术要求。我认为数字技术的内在逻辑不应该驱动知识产权政策。其次,我讨论了这样一个观点,即数字技术的独特特征,因此也是政策最应该寻求鼓励的东西,是集体创造力。我认为个人创作者仍然是至关重要的,知识产权法不会干涉像维基这样广泛分散的集体作品。最后,我希望大家认识到,IP政策不应该被大量业余内容的前景所蒙蔽;对我所说的“创意专业人士”——那些以创造高质量内容为生的人——的关注,一直是、也必须继续是知识产权法的重要组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Concept of Property in the Digital Era
In this Essay I argue that the basic case for property is still a very strong one. Individual control over individual assets still makes sense. I defend property rights in digital creations in the face of two general scholarly critiques: The first is what I call digital determinism - the idea that the central driving force behind IP policy should be the technological imperatives of digital creation and distribution. I argue that the inherent logic of digital technology should not drive IP policy. Second, I discuss the idea that the distinctive feature of digital technology, and therefore the thing that policy should most seek to encourage, is collective creativity. I argue that individual creators are still crucial, and that IP law does not interfere with widely dispersed collective works such as Wikis. Finally, I push for recognition that IP policy should not be blinded by the promise of massive amounts of amateur content; solicitude for what I call "creative professionals" - people who make a living creating high-quality content - has been and must continue to be an important part of IP law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信