The DCMA is a law enacted to protect the intellectual rights of individuals. It provides the basis with which inventors can ensure that other individuals do not use their inventions to fulfill their own commercial purposes. This in itself is theft, equal to taking someone else’s pay. However, it has come to the limelight that the law may also do wrong to the market. The law gives the inventors a twenty-year period with which it allows the inventor to do whatever he/she wants. This in itself creates a monopoly window for the inventor. History has taught the business world that monopolies are bad for business. Other than that, they also limit the diversification of a particular invention. The total repealing of this law or simply cutting down its powers rests squarely on the benefits of the law versus the drawbacks.
The chief aim of this law it ensuring that the rule of law is maintained, deterring would be thieves from infringing on inventor’s rights on intellectual property. This puts the market at a position whereby invention is encouraged. In case a secondary party takes an invention, the inventor has the law backing him and he can have justice served. However, the law is now slowing down the intellectual properties market. The inventor has a twenty-year window that gives him the right to that property. Such a law protects the individual but not the market. Such a large window serves to limit the diversification of the market by creating monopolies. Again, it becomes an ambiguous law when many other laws work to perform a similar function.
The solution is to polish the law. This process should allow protection of the intellectual properties’ right and still allow market diversification. The truth of the matter is that the law is necessary; eradicating it completely would only create fertile ground for lawlessness.
References
Spinello, R. A. (2011). Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace. Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Watal, J. (2001). Intellectual property rights in the WTO and developing countries. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Bronckers, M. C. E. J., Verkade, D. W. F., & European Commission. (2000). TRIPs agreement: Enforcement of intelectual property rights. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Maskus, K. E. (2000). Intellectual property rights in the global economy. Washington, D.C: Institute for International Economics.
