Are intellectual property rights compatible with Rawlsian principles of justice?
- Darryl J. Murphy
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This paper argues that intellectual property rights are incompatible with Rawls’s principles of justice. This conclusion is based upon an analysis of the social stratification that emerges as a result of the patent mechanism which defines a marginalized group and ensure that its members remain alienated from the rights, benefits, and freedoms afforded by the patent product. This stratification is further complicated, so I argue, by the copyright mechanism that restricts and redistributes those rights already distributed by means of the patent mechanism. I argue that the positions of privilege established through both the patent and the copyright mechanisms are positions that do not “allow the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.” They do not “benefit the least advantaged.” Nor are they “open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.” In making this argument I critically assess the utilitarian defense of intellectual property rights and find it insufficient to respond to the injustices manifest in our current arrangement for the protection of intellectual property rights.
- Altschuller, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2009). Is music downloading the new prohibition? what students reveal through an ethical dilemma. Ethics in Information Technology, 11, 49–56. CrossRef
- Benatar, S. (2006). Facing challenges in rolling out antiretroviral treatment in resource-poor countries: Comment on they call it ‘patient selection’ in Khayelitsha. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15(3), 322–330.
- Biron, L. (2010). Two challenges to the idea of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 382–394.
- Brennan, R., & Baines, P. (2006). Is there a morally right price for anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world? Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 29–43. CrossRef
- Britz, J. J., & Ponelis, S. R. (2009). The ethics of piracy in the music industry. Journal of Information Ethics, 18(2), 14–26. CrossRef
- Easley, R. F. (2005). Ethical issues in the music industry response to innovation and piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 163–168. CrossRef
- Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77, 287–366.
- Hull, G. (2009). Clearing the rubbish: Locke, the waste proviso, and the moral justification of intellectual property. Public Affairs Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.
- Introna, L. D. (2007). Singular justice and software piracy. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(3), 264–277. CrossRef
- Johansson, K. A., Jerene, D., & Norheim, O. F. (2008). National HIV treatment guidlines in Tanzania and Ethiopia: Are they legitimate rationing tools? Journal of Medical Ethics: The Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics, 34(6), 478–483. CrossRef
- Kau, A. K., Swinyard, W. R., & Rinne, H. (1990). The morality of software piracy: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 655–664. CrossRef
- McGowan, D. (2004). Copyright Nonconsequentialism. Missouri Law Review, 69, 1–72.
- Moore, A. D. (2003). Intellectual property: Theory, privilege, and pragmatism. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 16, 191–216.
- Nattrass, N. (2003). The moral economy of AIDS in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Neumann, M. (2009). Degrees of Property. Think 75–91.
- Nozick, R. (1999). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
- Peterson, J. (2008). Lockean property and literary works. Legal Theory, 14, 257–280. CrossRef
- Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
- Spinello, R. A. (2003). The future of intellectual property. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 1–16. CrossRef
- Tavani, H. T. (2005). Locke, intellectual property rights, and the information commons. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 87–97. CrossRef
- Wilson, J. (2010). Ontology and the regulation of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 450–463.
- Wreen, M. (2010). The ontology of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 433–449.
- Yung, B. (2009). Reflecting on the common discourse on piracy and intellectual property rights: A divergent perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 45–57. CrossRef
- Zwahlen, M., & Egger, E. (2006). Progression and mortality of untreated HIV-positive individuals living in resource-limited settings: Update of literature review and evidence synthesis. In UNAIDS Obligation HQ/05/422204. http://data.unaids.org/pub/periodical/2006/zwahlen_unaids_hq_05_422204_2007_en.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2011.
- Are intellectual property rights compatible with Rawlsian principles of justice?
Ethics and Information Technology
Volume 14, Issue 2 , pp 109-121
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Intellectual property rights
- Principles of justice
- Industry Sectors
- Darryl J. Murphy (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Independent, Thorold, ON, Canada