The U.S. constitution sets a framework for Intellectual property rights. It give

Question

The U.S. constitution sets a framework for Intellectual property
rights. It gives Congress "Power to...promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries...".

Most readings of this passage suggest that the primary purpose of
IP laws, as far as the constitution is concerned, should be to promote
the progress of science and the arts, rather than to ensure profitability
to inventors and artists. One interpretation, then, is that IP laws
should only be in place that attempt to maximize the creative output
of society as a whole.

Furthermore, the wording in the constitution states that "exclusive
rights" should be granted for "limited times". After this limited
time, the intellectual property should fall into the public domain,
where it belongs to everyone.

One important point is that unlike Freedom of Speech
the constitution says it will "grant" rights. In the case of
Freedom of Speech, the bill of rights states that congress shall
make no law abridging it. This suggests that the framers thought
of freedom of speech as a natural right not derived from the
constitution, but guaranteed by it. IP rights, on the other hand,
are artificial. They are to be granted for the purpose of
promoting the useful arts, but are not god given.

An important question is whether IP time limits and IP protectionism
have gone too far. The first copyright law in the U.S. was for 14 years.
This clearly suggests the kind of time limits the framers meant.
However, over the years, the original 14 years has been extended.
A few years ago Congress extended copyright from 75 to 95 years
to protect Mickey Mouse. Is 95 years a reasonable
"limited time"? This three generations, anyway, and no one
associated with the creation of Mickey Mouse is still alive today
to reap the rewards of this copyright.

Streaming Services:

Music streaming services such as Spotify pay low rates to
artists. For example, Spotify less than 1 cent per stream.
This means that an artist with a million streams stands to make
less than $10,000. Whether this is a fair rate or not, it is clear
that few artists can actually make a living through streaming
audio or video alone. Despite these low rates, Spotify has
not made a profit in recent years, so they are not merely
taking the lion's share of the profits.

Video streaming:

In many ways, video streaming services attempt to fill the
same business model that cable services started. Netflix is
the largest of these, but many others exist. Companies
generate and use IP to get subscribers to these services.
The only way this works, however, is to make popular shows
exclusive to a given streaming service. For example, the new show
Star Trek discovery will be streamed exclusively on CBS all access
in the United States:

https://decider.com/2017/09/27/star-trek-discovery-netflix-cbs-all-access/

The DMCA:

The 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) prohibits "making,
distributing, or using tools...to circumvent technological
copyright protection systems". Is this reasonable, given that
such tools have valid legal uses? The law makes no exception
for "fair use" purposes.

Free Software:

A lot of the software we use everyday is free. Someone
wrote it, and yet they chose to give it away. Have any
of you ever grabbed a snippet of code of the Internet?
That's free code. Why did people share it? Presumably,
most of these people were working for companies at the
time. Should these developers need permission from their
employers to post small pieces of code online for free?
Should there be a fee for using random code fragments found
on the Internet? Most of us would probably agree that
there should not. What about complete programs? Should
they also be free? Most of us would probably say that the
developers and companies who own the code should decide.

Have any of you ever used Linux,
Emacs, Java, Python, Ruby, Firefox, Apache, the GIMP, Inkscape,
Open Office, or Blender? These are all licensed
under open licenses. Many are under the GNU public license,
which allows free use of the software under the condition
that if you extend or modify it you must apply the same agreement
to the new work. This is sometimes called "copyleft"
instead of "copyright". It is a copyright model designed
to force openness.

---------- what is the summary of this article?

thank you

Explanation / Answer

The article explains "About the prupose of the IP laws/rights their current use cases.

The article aslo depicts about the limitations of IP rights is to stripped off and property should be made public after 14 years of finding which is extended to 75 to 95 years time frame."

There are different kinds of IP law enforcement:

- For open source licenses

- Technology protection for preventing illegal and unfair uses

- Monetary purpose to allow creators to make atleast minimal profit for their efforts

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.