Intellectual property is one of the highly divisive issues in contemporary philosophical and political debates. The main objective of this paper is to explore some sources of tension between the formal rules of intellectual property (particularly copyright and patents) and the emerging informal norms of file sharing and open access in online environments. We look into the file sharing phenomena not only to illustrate the deepening gap between the two sets of norms, but to cast some doubt on the current regime of intellectual property as an adequate frame for the new type of interactions in online environments. Revisiting the classic Arrow–Demsetz debate about intellectual property and the epistemological issues involved in assessing institutions, we suggest that seeking out new institutional arrangements aligned with the norms-in-use seems to be a more promising strategy in the new technological setting than attempting to reinforce the current legal framework. Moreover, such a strategy is less prone to committing the so-called ‘Nirvana fallacies’. As a secondary task, we try to cast some doubt on the two most common moral justifications of intellectual property as being able to ground the full extent of the current intellectual property regime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Google daily updates the figures here: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright (last accessed on May 24th, 2017).
The study was conducted by MUSO and some of its findings published by TorrentFreak in 2016: https://www.torrentfreak.com/europe-has-the-highest-online-piracy-rates-by-far-160801/ (last accessed on May 24th, 2017).
Which states that “if one of the Paretian optimum conditions cannot be fulfilled a second best optimum situation is achieved only by departing from all other optimum conditions” (Lipsey and Lancaster 1956, quoted in Wiens 2016).
There are some closed groups on Facebook (but not only) where researchers with inadequate access to scientific material ask more privileged people to send them, by email, copies of different articles (but not books). Because this is happening in a grey zone of copyright, we prefer not to name the groups.
The rest of this section is based on an argument one of us has proposed before in (Vică 2015, 328–332).
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/2144.html. Accessed March, 12 2017.
Biron, L. (2010). Two challenges to the idea of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 382–394.
Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind (1st ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cwik, B. (2014). Labor as the basis for intellectual property rights. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17(4), 681–695.
Dawdy, S. L., & Bonni, J. (2012). Towards a general theory of piracy. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(3), 673–699.
Demsetz, H. (1969). Information and efficiency: Another viewpoint. Journal of Law and Economics, 12(1), 1–22.
Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge & the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eres, R., Winnifred, R. L., & Molenberghs, P. (2017). Why do people pirate? A neuroimaging investigation. Social Neuroscience, 12(4), 366–378.
Ferreira, L. (2002). Access to affordable HIV/AIDS drugs: The Human Rights obligations of multinational pharmaceutical corporations. Fordham Law Review, 71(3), 1133–1179.
Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, A. (2015). The metaphysics of intellectual property. The WIPO Journal, 7(1), 16–28.
Gordon, W. J. (1993). A property right in self-expression: Equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law Journal, 102(7), 1533–1609.
Hales, D., & Patarin, S. (2005). How to cheat BitTorrent and why nobody does. Technical Report UBLCS-2005-12, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna.
Hamlin, A., & Stemplowska, Z. (2012). Theory, ideal theory and the theory of ideals. Political Studies Review, 10, 48–62.
Hettinger, E. C. (1989). Justifying intellectual property. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(1), 31–52.
Hull, G. (2008). Clearing the rubbish: Locke, the waste proviso, and the moral justification of intellectual property. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1082597. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1082597.
Krawczyk, M., Tyrowicz, J., Kukla-Gryz, A., & Hardy, W. (2015). ‘Piracy is not theft!’ Is it just students who think so? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54, 32–39.
Lambrecht, M. (2015). On water drinkers and magical springs: Challenging the Lockean proviso as a justification for copyright. Ratio Juris, 28(4), 504–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12098.
Locke, J. (1975). In P. H. Nidditch (Ed.), The Clarendon edition of the works of John Locke: An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Locke, J. (1980). In C. B. Macpherson (Ed.), Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Lynch, M. P. (2016, November 28). Fake News and the Internet Shell Game. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/opinion/fake-news-and-the-internet-shell-game.html. Accessed September, 20 2017.
May, C. (1998). Capital, knowledge and ownership: The ‘information society’ and intellectual property. Information, Communication & Society, 1(3), 246–269.
Menell, P. (2003). Intellectual property: General theories. Levine’s Working Paper Archive 618897000000000707. David K. Levine. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cla/levarc/618897000000000707.html. Accessed January, 12 2017.
Moor, J. (2008). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 26–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, A. (2015). Lockean foundations of intellectual property. The WIPO Journal, 7(1), 29–39.
Mossoff, A. (2012). Saving Locke from Marx: The labor theory of value in intellectual property theory. Social Philosophy and Policy, 29(2), 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052511000288.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Palmer, T. (1990). Are patents and copyrights morally justified? The philosophy of property rights and ideal objects. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 13(3), 817–865.
Price, D. (2013). Sizing the piracy universe. Resource https://www.netnames.com/assets/shared/whitepaper/pdf/netnames-sizing-piracy-universe-FULLreport-sept2013.pdf. Accessed June, 12 2017.
Sandberg, A. (2009). Intuitive pirates: Why do we accept file sharing so much? Practical Ethics - Ethics in the News. Resource http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2009/04/intuitive-pirates-why-do-we-accept-file-sharing-so-much/. Accessed May, 22 2017.
Sell, S., & May, C. (2001). Moments in law: Contestation and settlement in the history of intellectual property. Review of International Political Economy, 8(3), 467–500.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Shang, R.-A., Chen, Y.-C., & Chen, P.-C. (2008). Ethical decisions about sharing music files in the P2P environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 349–365.
Socaciu, E. M., & Uszkai, R. (2015). How drug patents might lead to disincentives for moral bioenhancement. Ethics in Biology, Engineering & Medicine—An International Journal, 6(1–2), 125–138.
Svensson, M., & Larsson, S. (2012). Intellectual property law compliance in Europe: Illegal file sharing and the role of social norms. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1147–1163.
Tavani, H. (2005). Locke, intellectual property rights, and the information commons. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 87–97.
Tehranian, J. (2007). Infringement nation: Copyright reform and the law/norm gap. Utah Law Review, 3, 537–549.
Tehranian, J. (2011). Infringement nation: Copyright 2.0 and you (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thorpe, J. (2004). Some challenges for Copyright-Related quantification. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 1(1), 41–50.
Uszkai, R. (2014). Aspecte etice ale procesului de partajare de fișiere prin protocolul BitTorrent: între proprietate intelectuală și evoluția cooperării (Doctoral Thesis). Bucharest: University of Bucharest. Library of the Faculty of Philosophy.
Uszkai, R. (2016). Pirateria online: un tip de infracţiune fără victime. Revista de filosofie, 63(5), 597–610.
Uszkai, R., & Vică, C. (2012). How to assess the emergence of the European pirate parties: Towards a research agenda. Sfera Politicii, 169, 46–55.
Vică, C. (2015). Intellectual property, globalization, and left-libertarianism. Symposion, 2(3), 323–345.
Wiens, D. (2016). Assessing ideal theories: Lessons from the theories of the second-best. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 15(2), 132–149.
Yar, M. (2008). The rhetorics and myths of anti-piracy campaigns: Criminalization, Moral pedagogy and capitalist property relations in the classroom. New Media & Society, 10(4), 605–623.
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, Project Number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-1846. We are deeply indebted to our colleagues Cristina Voinea, Anda Zahiu, Maria Banu, Ingrid Niculescu, Alexandra Oprea, Toni Gibea and especially Emilian Mihailov and Radu Uszkai. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the journal editors for their valuable feedback and suggestions.
About this article
Cite this article
Vică, C., Socaciu, E. Mind the Gap! How the Digital Turn Upsets Intellectual Property. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 247–264 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9996-x
- Intellectual property rights
- Digital information
- File sharing
- Social norms
- “Nirvana fallacy”