|
|
|
 论文编号：
lw200707250901489726 |
| 论文属性：
Notes |
| 论文语言：English |
| 论文国家：U.K. |
| 登出日期： 2007-07-25 |
| 字数： 5000 |
| 源程序：
无 |
| 价格：
免费论文 |
| 注明： |
|
|
| 论文大纲，目录 |
| 关键词搜索： |
ative to a world of privately owned culture. The Wikipedia
defines copyleft as follows:
“Copyleft describes a group of licenses applied to works such as software,
documents, and art. Where copyright law is seen by the original proponents of
copyleft as a way to restrict the right to make and redistribute copies of a particular
work, a copyleft license uses copyright law in order to ensure that every person who
receives a copy or derived version of a work, can use, modify, and also redistribute
both the work, and derived versions of the work. Thus, in a non-legal sense, copyleft
is the opposite of copyright.”
the “copyleft” symbol (it reverses the copyright icon)
3. Alternatives and Applications: Arguments on Behalf of Intellectual
Property Law
source: William Adkinson. “Copy Left: The Opposite of Copyright.” Center for the Study
of Digital Property, a research unit attached to The Progress and Freedom Foundation.
Published February 4, 2004.
In a world where information has significant commercial value—as Google’s success
has proved again--it is not surprising that the terms in which intellectual and artistic products are assigned legal protection are the subject of passionate debate. Thirty years
ago, some 80% of the value of publicly traded companies was defined in terms of
tangible assets. Today, the dominant forms of value are in intangible assets—
copyrights, customer lists, discoveries, patents, brands—or what we mi英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】ght call
collectively “intellectual property.” The debate over intellectual property is one of the
most heated and vital in the context of this emergent information economy.
The article by Perelman is aligned with a view of copyright that prefers only limited
control by individuals and, especially, by corporations over information and cultural
properties. But there is a different side to this debate, which takes the form of a
principled defense of property rights by critics often, but not always, associated with free-
market liberalism and the political right. The substance of this argument is echoed in
William Adkinson’s criticism of the “copyleft” phenomenon, which prefers limited legal
protections for intellectual and creative works on the grounds that the free circulation of
ideas is best for society.
Adkinson argues that advocates of “copyleft” (like Perelman) do not understand that
intellectual property laws—and specifically copyright for intellectual and cultural works—
are necessary to allowing creators to profit from their efforts. Phenomena like “peer-to-
peer” sharing of music and movies on the Internet undermine the “marketable rights” of
creators, whether individual or corporate, and thus ultimately stifle free expression—
rather than encouraging it. Mass markets for media and cultural goods—for example,
Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of King Kong—are the best way of ensuring that people
get access to low-cost culture. Mark
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
| 第1页 第2页 第3页 第4页 第5页 第6页 第7页 第8页 第9页 第10页 第11页 第12页 第13页 第14页 第15页 第16页 第17页 |
|
|
| 最新论文 |
最热门论文 |
|
|
|
