为什么自由意志主义者不应该(过于)怀疑知识产权

R. Epstein
{"title":"为什么自由意志主义者不应该(过于)怀疑知识产权","authors":"R. Epstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.981779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Libertarians are inclined to view property as best dealt with through contract. They are hostile to IP rights in general, and copyright and patent rights in particular, because these aren't viewed as natural rights over tangible things stemming from the actions of individuals. Still these rights are defensible because they help advance human happiness in a wide range of circumstances, so that their creation under a set of general prospective rules satisfies the most exacting of social criterion. They tend to leave no one worse off than in a state of nature, and indeed tend to spread their net benefits broadly over the entire population. Differences in how the law treats both tangible and intellectual property do not signal any disintegration in the overall conception of property rights. As in all cases we should be on the lookout for strong social improvements that cannot be achieved by voluntary means. In those cases, purposive innovation on property rights, by either courts or legislatures seems appropriate. The law of intellectual property should be subject to constant analysis and review, but not to any a priori attack on the supposed inferiority of intellectual property rights to those in tangible objects.","PeriodicalId":431450,"journal":{"name":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","volume":"18 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Libertarians Shouldn't Be (Too) Skeptical About Intellectual Property\",\"authors\":\"R. Epstein\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.981779\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Libertarians are inclined to view property as best dealt with through contract. They are hostile to IP rights in general, and copyright and patent rights in particular, because these aren't viewed as natural rights over tangible things stemming from the actions of individuals. Still these rights are defensible because they help advance human happiness in a wide range of circumstances, so that their creation under a set of general prospective rules satisfies the most exacting of social criterion. They tend to leave no one worse off than in a state of nature, and indeed tend to spread their net benefits broadly over the entire population. Differences in how the law treats both tangible and intellectual property do not signal any disintegration in the overall conception of property rights. As in all cases we should be on the lookout for strong social improvements that cannot be achieved by voluntary means. In those cases, purposive innovation on property rights, by either courts or legislatures seems appropriate. The law of intellectual property should be subject to constant analysis and review, but not to any a priori attack on the supposed inferiority of intellectual property rights to those in tangible objects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.981779\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.981779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

自由意志主义者倾向于认为财产最好通过合同来处理。他们对知识产权抱有敌意,尤其是版权和专利权,因为它们不被视为对源于个人行为的有形事物的自然权利。然而,这些权利是可以捍卫的,因为它们有助于在广泛的情况下增进人类的幸福,因此,在一套普遍的预期规则下创造这些权利符合最严格的社会标准。它们往往不会让任何一个人的境况比处于自然状态时更糟,而且确实倾向于将它们的净收益广泛地分配给全体人口。法律对待有形产权和知识产权的方式不同,并不意味着产权整体概念的解体。正如在所有情况下一样,我们应该注意不能通过自愿手段实现的强有力的社会改善。在这些情况下,法院或立法机构对产权进行有目的的创新似乎是适当的。知识产权法应该受到不断的分析和审查,但不应该对知识产权不如有形物体的假设进行任何先验的攻击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Libertarians Shouldn't Be (Too) Skeptical About Intellectual Property
Libertarians are inclined to view property as best dealt with through contract. They are hostile to IP rights in general, and copyright and patent rights in particular, because these aren't viewed as natural rights over tangible things stemming from the actions of individuals. Still these rights are defensible because they help advance human happiness in a wide range of circumstances, so that their creation under a set of general prospective rules satisfies the most exacting of social criterion. They tend to leave no one worse off than in a state of nature, and indeed tend to spread their net benefits broadly over the entire population. Differences in how the law treats both tangible and intellectual property do not signal any disintegration in the overall conception of property rights. As in all cases we should be on the lookout for strong social improvements that cannot be achieved by voluntary means. In those cases, purposive innovation on property rights, by either courts or legislatures seems appropriate. The law of intellectual property should be subject to constant analysis and review, but not to any a priori attack on the supposed inferiority of intellectual property rights to those in tangible objects.
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