Chapter 8 Quiz
Chapter 8 – Quiz 8
(a) Has protection for proprietary software gone too far, as some critics suggest? (b) If not, why? (c) If so, what are the implications for innovation and competition in the computer industry? (d) How can we achieve an appropriate balance between those who hold legal rights to proprietary information and ordinary users who wish to access, share, and communicate that information?
Protection for proprietary software has not gone too far. Patents, trademarks, trade secrets involving software are legal protections that should extend to software. I concur with the labor theory of property argument for copyrights of software. I also support the utilitarian theory of property.
Protection for proprietary software has not gone too far because software is much like a creation or invention. Software should have the same protections at law as other forms of inventions and creations. Although software was initially shared and not copyrighted, it is now more of a personal and creative product. Thus, software calls for the need for laws along with all available and necessary protections.
This question is not applicable as I have argued that protections for proprietary software have not gone too far. Providing for the protection of software as property insures that innovation and competition will continue.
A balance between those who hold legal rights and ordinary users can be achieved by fair use and first sale. Fair use means that authors or publishers may use another’s work for specific uses. Uses may include criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. This would allow someone to buy software for the purpose of using it for one of these reasons. First sale means that once a work is sold, the first owner no longer has rights to the work. The first sale doctrine has been upheld by the Supreme Court in regard to digital goods.
(a) What is meant by “intellectual commons”? (b) How is this commons disappearing in the cyberage? (c) Does Mr. Boyle’s suggestion that a political movement, similar to the environmental movement in the 1970s, is needed to save the commons merit further consideration?
Intellectual commons are information that is available and open to all of the public to share. Or, “a body of knowledge or information that is available to anyone to use without the need to ask for or receive permission from another, providing any conditions placed on its use are respected” Ch. 8 definition by Elizabeth Buchanan and James Campbell.
Intellectual commons are disappearing because access is being limited or inaccessible to some by law. Additionally, other forms of technology are making commons private rather than public.
Boyle’s suggestion may need further consideration as I have noticed that prior to the great advances in technology made in recent years, it was much easier to access information. Simply because information resources are underutilized does not mean that the resources should be depleted. Intellectual commons provide greater access to information and knowledge. Some have even argued that intellectual commons are our future libraries.
References
Enimil, Sandra. The First Sale Doctrine and the Sale of Digital Goods in Light of Kirtsaeng and ReDigi, Inc. 23 April 2013. <https://library.osu.edu/blogs/copyright/2013/04/23/the-first-sale-doctrine-and-the-sale-of-digital-goods-in-light-of-kirtsaeng-and-redigi-inc/>.
Aiani, Candace. From Library to Information Commons. 2015. <http://www.nais.org/Magazines-Newsletters/ITMagazine/Pages/From-Library-to-Information-Commons.aspx>.
