The Regulation of Intellectual Property - Term Paper Example

The Regulation of Intellectual Property Intellectual Property (IP) is a term that refers to numerous different types of legal monopolies that are applied to both commercial and artistic creations of the mind. . These creations may include inventions, designs, images, names, symbols and artistic and literal works. Intellectual property has two categories namely industrial property and copyright. Industrial property includes geographic indications of source, industrial designs, trademarks and patents while copyright includes artistic works, musical works, plays, films, poems and novels. The intellectual property laws not only grants owners certain exclusive rights over a variety of their assets but also lets them own the work they have created. Ideas concerning computer crime, ethical technology use and intellectual property seem to widely differ across the world according to Cohen and Cornwell (1989). The world is now smaller - thanks to technology use - and as such, the potential controversies regarding the three areas have risen dramatically. Information systems professionals need a thorough identification with the value system of a region together with its cultural mores for effective operation. The subject of ethics of Information Systems (IS) has received a lot of attention recently with many scholars, intellectuals and members of public airing their out different views. Most of articles written by scholars and IP owners have covered ethical issues on the use of Information Technology (IT) and Information Systems within the U.S. These articles however, provide important insights that provide bearings in the study of matters from a global perspective. Both educators and scholars in the technology field in the U.S. and indeed all over the world agree on the need for ground rules governing the use of IT. In fact, there is an increase in the realization of the necessity to integrate ethics into the IS curricular (Cohen & Cornwell, 1989). In 2009, United Kingdom’s Minister for Communication published a Digital Britain report (2009) in which were regulations over intellectual property. The report has proposals that seek to enforce copyright which in turn is to limit electronic access to IP. This essay seeks to examine and discuss the proposals seeking to regulate IP from different ethical positions. Arguments for and against Piracy The Digital Britain report notes that the content industry has a major challenge as previous models of controlling the industry have broken down (Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2009). Creative industries have reported considerable losses resulting from unlawful file sharing among peers. The United Kingdom’s television and film industries, in 2007, are reported to have lost a whooping 152 million sterling pounds while the music industry reported a loss of 180 million pounds in 2008. The 1997 global estimates on the revenue loss in the application software market due to piracy approached 11.4 billion U.S dollars (Gopal and Sanders, 2000). The report notes that more than seven percent of total purchases in music albums are done digitally. The percentage downloads and online streaming of film and television may be small but it is rapidly rising. Creative industries work with creations and talents that may be possessed by just a few people. The digital world makes it possible for consumers to have access to these creations in large numbers. As the global utilization of technology rapidly increases, so does the potential for situations with nebulous ethics (Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2009). Even though most countries all over the world have legislations that seek to control violations against intellectual property, the vice still grows at an unprecedented rate. After all, there are numerous factors that prompt the violators to illegally copy software. For instance, developing an original software copy may cost millions in cash but it virtually costs nothing to come up with a pirated copy of the same. Another motivator of software piracy is the need for software to be updated regularly to remain current. Infringing on copyright laws applies all over the world but especially in countries which have low per capita income. The cost of legitimate software in these countries are out of reach for most citizens prompting them to seek cheaper alternatives which pirates are only too happy to provide. Studies conducted in the past on the illegal use of pirated software in schools and businesses in the developed world revealed distressing behavioural patterns (Bloombecker, 1991). According to Davis and Vitell (1992), some users of IT believe that the pirating of software helps in achieving success in business. It appears, therefore, that ethical standards in information systems are no doubt on the decline. Yet another study indicated that compared to those in managerial positions and IS professionals, students possessed lower and fewer ethical standards towards piracy (Wood, 1991). Sooner rather than later, the very students enter the workforce with their already lame ethical standards. It is a notable fact that human beings tend to heavily depend on their personal values when making decisions on what is unethical or ethical behaviour (Kreie & Cronan, 2000). It therefore can be logically concluded that this variation increases as one moves to the global arena with its many different social values and cultures. Another disturbing fact emerging from studies is the way people, some of who very well know and understand the difference between unethical and ethical use of IT, have a tendency of disregarding these distinctions (Athey, 1990). In other words, while they know pirating is wrong, they engage in it anyway. The availability of sophisticated communication equipment has meant less face to face interactions hence decisions often are arrived at without much consideration or thought (Ess, 2009). The potential of the occurrence of unethical behaviour has increased with less time being devoted to cautious consideration of all the consequences of particular acts. Information sharing sometimes often clashes with privacy and confidentiality concerns, and the unavailability of security makes it easy to use technology in an unethical way. The Carter report on regulation of intellectual property has not escaped criticism. There are those who argue that the IP regime seeks to shut down access to knowledge instead of allowing for its dissemination. Knowledge is regarded as a common good and as such its benefits should not be restricted. The exclusion to knowledge creates a monopoly which can easily be abused. Critics argue that even though patent monopolies drive innovation, they also impede the speed of innovation and science. Generally, their arguments revolve around the statement that the arbitrary copying, distribution, modification and use of published information does not cause harm to anyone. When a person makes a copy of some piece of published information the information does not get lost. The inventor of the information still retains it in precisely the same state. They further argue that the limit to copying, distribution, use and modification of information harms scientific and artistic progress (Cohen & Cornwell, 1989). For example, an inventor may create software that assists one to find books in a library and patent it and a second person may have the ability to modify it and making it even more beneficial to consumers. The current patent law, however, prevents this modification from happening for whatever reasons, hence denying consumers access to a better product even though the modification does not harm the inventor. The restriction on the free flow of information interferes with the freedom of speech, freedom to think freely and freedom to express oneself. One cannot even legally research on patented work without seeking a licence first. Critics argue that the intellectual property rights forbid repeating of the program to someone else. This in their view is as good as interfering with the freedom to obtain, process and store the knowledge or even spread it. Instead one must first seek permission. An example against technology regulation is the case where people write successful software programmes and ended up attracting lawsuits for alleged patent infringement. This, according to critics, is a failure on the part of the IP regime to encourage innovation (Ess, 2009). The patent monopolies have more private benefits than society benefits since the person who secures a patent over a certain product wins a long time monopoly which widens the gap between social and private returns in the society. What these critics overlook is the fact that the regulations are not meant to cut off access to technology for most people; the regulations are all about protecting and rewarding the great minds that created the technologies and letting owners control their products. In any case the Digital Britain report proposes that all existing innovations be made digitally ready so as to reach as many people as possible with relative ease and minimal cost. The report proposes a Universal Service Commitment that will deliver video quality broadband and enable most households in Britain get access to greater bandwidth making downloading and searching for content much easier and more common (Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2009). While it is true that when copying occurs, the original copy is still left intact with no alterations but it is also true that pirated copies affect the original it terms of competition for the market. On the issue of competition, critics argue that competition is always good for progress. This is true but when it comes to unlawful copies this should not apply as the competition will be an unfair one owing to the cost difference of making pirated and original copies. It has been noted that piracy actually kills the market for original technology. Without a good market, financial rewards for technology developers are reduced and without rewards, the desire to come up with new inventions reduces. When the product is undercut by illegal copies, all those affected in its development are greatly affected. Editors, authors, publishers and manufacturing companies all lose money as a result of piracy. For instance, drug companies spend millions of dollars in the research and development of single drugs. All parties involved in the development circle expect their investments to pay back when the finalized drug goes to the shelves for sale to the public. Copying of the same drug costs the pirates very little and allows them to not only benefit hugely from someone else’s sweat but also denies the investors revenues that pay back for their investments. The uncertainty on return in investment discourages investors to part with their money and greatly interferes with research of new drugs which require huge amounts of monetary investments (Boyle, 2008). The new regulations do not put a stop to modification for the betterment of software and other technologies as mentioned in the arguments stated above. The Digital Britain report seeks to make Britain a foundation of innovation in applications, services and content. The report encourages the development of existing services, applications and content with the aim of improving products. These, however, according to the report have to be done in such a way that the creative industries are given credit for their efforts. The report stresses on the importance of rewarding creativity and satisfying consumers, distributors, aggressors and creators. This creates a win-win situation for all involved in the development of products. Patenting may seem to have excessively restrictive conditions on the use of products. Due to this, less restrictive measures targeting the use and development of computer software have been developed such as the Free and Open Source Software, and the Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS). These combine two vital yet conflicting ethical and philosophical frameworks namely Free Software and Open Source Initiative (Ess, 2009). The Free Software movement started with opposing the commercial property software that is oriented towards profit making and the copyright schemes that protect them. On the other hand, the Open Source initiative was based on making frees software more appealing for businesses driven by the urge to make huge profits. The FLOSS initiative aims to make software completely free for use by anyone and everyone. It justifies the reasons for the provision of free software based on the benefits it will bring to as many people as possible. Free software would mean the users get all the freedom to do what they like with the software. The freedom can be categorized into four; the freedom to utilize the software for whatever purpose, to study the functioning of the product, to accustom it to suit the users needs, redistribute the product for the benefit of others and the freedom to improve the product and make the improvements available to the public to enable everyone benefit. These freedoms seek to make products beneficial to as many people as possible (Ess, 2009). What these freedoms do not consider is that the products can still benefit many people in a regulated manner with the owners getting economic incentives for their efforts. Instead of relying on copyright systems for assurance that authorial rights are protected, these free software movements concentrate on the benefits computer software would have if they were shared as equally and broadly as possible. They do not realize the importance of protecting the source so as to encourage the source to keep producing. There is the creative approach which accords the freedom to copy, display, distribute, remix and perform the work of someone else but with certain conditions. The work has to be attributed in a way specified by the licensor or author but not in a way that implies that they endorsed the use of their work (Ess, 2009). The material may not be used for commercial purposes and should it be altered, it may only be distributed in the same way as the original material. If the material is to be reused or redistributed, the re-user has to make it clear to others the terms of work in the licence. The licence does not restrict or impair the author’s moral rights in any way apart from the remix rights. These conditions however can be waved to someone who seeks permission from the holder of the copyright. The creative approach relaxes rules on copying while at the same time allowing the owners to retain their moral rights including the right to protect their work to be used for others for commercial purposes (Ess, 2009). Conclusion Technology is what currently ties together people especially now that it is experiencing rapid growth. Technology is beneficial to all people as long as it is not misused. The abuse of intellectual property and copyright rules has of late become more common with the advancement of technology calling for more stringent ways of protecting technology. This calls for regulations and control of technology such as suggested in the Carter report. The Digital Britain report promotes the advancement of technology and its availability to as many people as possible in an equal and fair way. The reports call for regulations to be enforced so that technology is used fairly and equally. It proposes the regulation of technology for the benefit of all. The abuse of technology will definitely reduce if the proposals in the carter report are to be followed. In other words, the Carter report is not opposed to free technology as long as it is well regulated. References Athey, S. (1990) “A comparison of the fortune 500 and AACSB-Accredited Universities’ Software Copying Policies”, CIS Educator Forum, (2) 4. Bloombecker, J. (1991). “Computer ethics: An antidote to despair”, The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 27:1. Boyle, J. (2008)The public domain: Enclosing the Commons of the mind. CSPD. Cohen E. & Cornwell L. (1989) “A question of ethics: Developing Information Systems Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, (8) 6. Davis D. & Vitell S. (1992) “The ethical problems, conflicts and beliefs of small business information personnel”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 22:4. Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2009) Digital Britain - final report, retrieved 24th January, 2010 http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf Ess C. ( 2009) Digital Media Ethics, Polity Press. Gopal R. & Sanders G. (2000) “Global Software Piracy: You can’t get blood out of a turnip”, Communications of the ACM, 43:9. Kreie J. and Cronan, T. (2000) “Making ethical decisions”, Communications of the ACM, 43:12 Wood W. (1991) “A view of computer ethics by managers and students”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 22:2. Read More