Any person of good will intuitively understand "intellectual property rights," something that cannot be found in natural law, is wrong in spite of being enshrined in positive law. The church obliges the state when the state makes laws, giving the state the benefit of the doubt that the law is licit. The church is again, as it does ever century or two, rethinking its relationship with the state. In these times of foment, it is good to review what can stay and what needs to go.
Why the concept of "intellectual property rights" is wrong, from a Catholic moral perspective, is that
1. Intellectual Property Rights allow someone to sell something that does not exist, in reality just an idea. It is wrong to sell something does not exist.
2. The contract sells something that one does not own. The actual product, say a book or a machine, is produced by someone else. It is the capital of that someone else, their management, their sales network that actually produces a good and a customer.
3. It is a business contract in which one partner takes no risk. The person with the "idea" joins in a partnership and gets paid no matter what happens. The "idea" person takes no risk. It is a fundamental requirement of justice in business that all partners share the risk.
4. Asymmetrical contract. People are forced, under threat of violence to agree. The only way anyone would agree to this is if, under threat of violence, they are obliged to comply. And that is the system we have.
The funny thing is there is a voluntary association that is right and just that makes IPR unneccessary. Just as Apple pays artists whose creativity drives people to buy Apple machines that ease access to such creative works, so a manufacturer may retain a designer on a "royalty basis" to assure access to a constant stream of creativity.
The irony is people working under the voluntary association on average do far better than those who live under an inherently evil regime.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Why the concept of "intellectual property rights" is wrong, from a Catholic moral perspective, is that
1. Intellectual Property Rights allow someone to sell something that does not exist, in reality just an idea. It is wrong to sell something does not exist.
2. The contract sells something that one does not own. The actual product, say a book or a machine, is produced by someone else. It is the capital of that someone else, their management, their sales network that actually produces a good and a customer.
3. It is a business contract in which one partner takes no risk. The person with the "idea" joins in a partnership and gets paid no matter what happens. The "idea" person takes no risk. It is a fundamental requirement of justice in business that all partners share the risk.
4. Asymmetrical contract. People are forced, under threat of violence to agree. The only way anyone would agree to this is if, under threat of violence, they are obliged to comply. And that is the system we have.
The funny thing is there is a voluntary association that is right and just that makes IPR unneccessary. Just as Apple pays artists whose creativity drives people to buy Apple machines that ease access to such creative works, so a manufacturer may retain a designer on a "royalty basis" to assure access to a constant stream of creativity.
The irony is people working under the voluntary association on average do far better than those who live under an inherently evil regime.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment