Amazon.com Widgets

Should intellectual property rights be abolished?

  • It is not smart idea to abolish the intellectual property rights!

    I found myself in my organisation that my translated work was taken to change few words but the cheater put her name of my work on the internet without my credit because she wanted to get higher rank in the job from my boss or more well-known to show off.
    But it is not good feeling for me to work whole night but suddenly someone took your job to tell people that her job , If you are me can you imagine how do you feel?
    Like you let someone use your nose to breath but you suffer in the end!

  • Innovation is in corporation with imitation, if property rights got into law there would be less imitation, less ideas, less creativity.

    We should get rid of property rights. Innovation is in corporation with imitation, if property rights got into law there would be less imitation, less ideas flowing. For example other people may see the “first person” coming up with something cool or to their liking and decide to recreate it but as they’re recreating it might take some things out that the “first person” did and add in there own ideas and creations to it. They might even be inspired by that “first” and make something maybe a little similar or thought of something better, or come up with something else altogether by just looking at what that “first” did, least to say it becomes their own idea in a process, in their way.

  • Copyright defeats its original purpose.

    Copyright was first established to allow for progress in science and arts, yet many creators takes advantage of copyright, especially when some of their works derived from or are based on sources that have no copyright or have lost their copyright. Plus, copyright protects works even after the creator's death, which is seemingly useless because the creator is well... Death and can no longer create anything new that will boost progress in the fields of art and science.

  • Copyright defeats its original purpose.

    Copyright was first established to allow for progress in science and arts, yet many creators takes advantage of copyright, especially when some of their works are derived from sources that have lost copyright. Plus, copyright protects works even after the creator's death, which is seemingly useless because the creator is well... Dead and can't create anything new that will boost progress.

  • It was a bad idea in the first place

    It didn't seem like it because only the creators who couldn't monetize their creations took advantage of it.. However now you have massive companies that hold the patent to naturally occurring plants.. You have massive companies holding new synthetic materials hostage.. And of course you have massive companies buying old patents only for profit with zero intention of producing actual product..

    Recently an american company was able to successfully patent non modified pig genetics.. This has gone too far and is killing people, economies, and creativity....

  • Yes it should

    It should be abolished so i could just ctrl c + ctrl v all my school works on the internet, and fuck the police bro you get it right? Its going to be so cool!!!!! No more links or shit, ima just sit down and relax while copying and pasting!

  • Should be abolished

    First all works protected under IP are what is called a non-rivalrous and non-excludable resource meaning that if i have a copy that doest take your copy away from you and we can both enjoy it.Once created it is practicly an infinite resource so limiting it is creating artifical scarcity via what is essentially a monopoly.Second to own IP is to basically own an idea the fact that this is possible should be a terrifying thought.All of human civilization is build upon the sharing of ideas your are essentially puting participation in idea sharng behind a paywall and those that need new ideas the most are usually the ones that can pay the least for the, what absurdity is this.Third the idea of the singular autor is problematic at best. Whatever ideas you have are influenced by your culture language status and the works you have seen.Whatever one creates is as muhc his work as it is of his insparation his culture and all th e many little factors around him or that is unique is his expression to site Mark Twain:
    "Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that "plagiarism" farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.
    Letter to Helen Keller, after she had been accused of plagiarism, published in Mark Twain's Letters, Vol. 1 "
    And finally why must it be that copyright is used as a solution do we pay a carpenter constantly or only at creation once.

  • Should be abolished

    First all works protected under IP are what is called a non-rivalrous and non-excludable resource meaning that if i have a copy that doest take your copy away from you and we can both enjoy it.Once created it is practicly an infinite resource so limiting it is creating artifical scarcity via what is essentially a monopoly.Second to own IP is to basically own an idea the fact that this is possible should be a terrifying thought.All of human civilization is build upon the sharing of ideas your are essentially puting participation in idea sharng behind a paywall and those that need new ideas the most are usually the ones that can pay the least for the, what absurdity is this.Third the idea of the singular autor is problematic at best. Whatever ideas you have are influenced by your culture language status and the works you have seen.Whatever one creates is as muhc his work as it is of his insparation his culture and all th e many little factors around him or that is unique is his expression to site Mark Twain:
    "Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that "plagiarism" farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.
    Letter to Helen Keller, after she had been accused of plagiarism, published in Mark Twain's Letters, Vol. 1 "
    And finally why must it be that copyright is used as a solution do we pay a carpenter constantly or only at creation once.

  • Death to America

    Simply put.
    We must brutally bring humanity to its knees and leap back to the stone age.

    No more innovation, no more content, a static a boring lifestyle for all, free of the Kardashians, The MPAA, The RIAA and all these others.

    Many will perish because new drugs for diseases will not be produced and this will be glorious as earth was never meant to handle this much population.

    All will suffer but all will adapt.

    Death to America, Death to Innovation and Death to all who oppose us!

  • Property Rights Should Be Abolished because.....

    In the future, if this goes on, people could copyright entire words or historical scriptures or scientific/crime evidence or food forever! This is madness! How would people print their food when they have to pay an absurd amount to eat! Think of the future! (printing food= 3D printing)

    -By the person who wants to destroy copyright forever

  • There is no reason to abolish these rights because, if a person came up with an idea, they should get credit for it.

    If your friend was to develop a product off of an idea that you originally had, wouldn't you be mad? Intellectual property rights give a person protection of their own ideas. Abolishing these rights gives credit where credit is not due. If you come up with an idea all on your own, you wouldn't want someone to steal that idea from you. Without these rights, that's exactly what would happen.

    Posted by: AmusingKareem
  • Intellectual property rights should not be abolished, because people's incomes may rely on them.

    Writers and other creators earn their living by stringing together words or other media forms to develop ideas, usually for a form of residual income. This is very different than a factory worker who sells their time in exchange for an hourly wage. Taking away intellectual property rights would be the same as stealing pay checks from traditionally employed individuals.

    Posted by: HelpfulKenneth84
  • I do not believe that intellectual property rights should be abolished so creativity is not limited.

    Abolishing intellectual property rights of individuals would severely cripple the creativity necessary for achievements in many different areas. Scientists would be afraid to research for fear of competitors stealing and profiting from their ideas. Artists would withhold their music, books, paintings, etc. from the world for fear of their works being duplicated and claimed as the work of others, to say nothing of the fear of not being fairly compensated.

    Posted by: ChildlikeLamar56
  • No, I do not think that intellectual property rights should be abolished, because the work of an individual or company is their work to own.

    When an artists brings something into the world through their own blood, sweat, and tears, they are putting an incredible amount of effort into creating something to share with others. It is morally wrong to take someone's work, and intellectual property rights are there to protect the creator of a piece. This is to prevent someone who did not go through the effort to create it, from taking all the credit for it.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • Intellectual property rights are critical to encouraging innovation and making sure creative people are fairly compensated, and should not be abolished.

    Intellectual property rights were established to encourage innovation by making sure people had an exclusive rights to their creations and, thus, could profit from them. They have served this purpose admirably for years. If intellectual property rights were abolished, creative people would not be able to secure compensation for their work, and fewer people would take up creative pursuits. This would have a terrible effect on the arts, culture, and innovation. People who do the hard work of producing creative works deserve to be compensated for that work, the same as anyone else.

    Posted by: PreciousMiguel78
  • No, because intellectual property rights are vital to innovation, and should never be abolished.

    It is not right to even consider abolishing intellectual property rights, because that person worked hard to come up with an idea or innovation. It is not right to not offer them protection from infringement on their idea. It is vital to our society that we continue to protect the intellectual property of the great minds.

    Posted by: M0r3Interior
  • Intellectual property rights should not be abolished.

    The protection of intellectual property rights is an important part of our economy. Intellectual property refers to ideas, copyright, trade secrets and other intangible items. If the people who conceive of these items are not allowed to reap the benefits of their work, then that removes the incentive in our economy for these people to create. For example, many of us reap the benefits of a person's patented process, it is only fair that the person who created it be monetarily rewarded.

    Posted by: Cen2I0rd
  • Intellectual property rights should be narrowed in some cases, but not abolished, because the financial incentive needs to remain in place.

    Robust conceptions of intellectual property rights have undermined much fair use and creative appropriation of media content in the digital era. But, the original purpose of copyright, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," remains important. Without the financial incentives promoted by at least some exclusivity of rights for content producers, creativity, especially on the part of small-scale producers, like freelance writers, is apt to suffer. Selective narrowing of intellectual property rights is important in the age of the Internet. But we must not throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • No, there would be no incentive for innovation.

    Strip away a company's right to protect its ideas and the very company itself will cease to exist. Without intellectual property rights, companies who choose to innovate would spend more money and time securing their product. This would raise the cost of all products, and severely hamper the innovative spirit of America.

    Posted by: SpoiledKris
  • Intellectual property rights should be there, as it helps an organisation or person safeguard the most valuable asset from being exploited or misused by another person.

    Human intelligence and new ideas have a unique aspect that cannot be reproduced or copied. Organisations get a "property rights" agreement with the consent of the employee who is willing to give it, so there should not be any issues. Intellectual property is much more valuable than any other asset and getting rid of "intellectual property rights" provisions is equivalent to approving a crime.

    Posted by: AriannaF

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.