Amazon.com Widgets

Should intellectual property rights be abolished?

  • KNOWLOADGE is part of humanity

    Technology means technic and knowledge .Intellectual property rights is invented by people who wants to make "profit"from technology. Profit is a matter of concern by people who wants to use others. Scientists who invents technology are not concerned by making profit but concerned about to understand and ease the difficulties of living. For example a chair is a technology which eases our effort to sitting . If it not existed we would be sitting on ground. Wheel is a technology. Does the companies paying intellectual property right to the person who invented the wheel ? Answer is no . Does the companies pay to the scientists who work for them from the profit of intellectual property right regulations ? HELL NO! They just make them work and pay their "work hours". But that knowloadge belonged to those scientists.
    Question ; who benefits from the intellectual property right ? Answer is companies . To who does the companies belongs to ? It certainly does not belong to average people nor the farmers nor the technicians nor the engineers nor the scientists . It belongs to a" high elite group" of people who owns that company. It benefits to those people who see themselves above others who wears 10000dollar watch and 5000 dollar suits and they are the true terorists of this world. Considering the benefit of minority over the majority of people is not humanitarian. Intellectual property rights does not protect knowledge. It protects the "profit of the knowledge" so thus it should be removed. You will not see anyone try to make profit from sea water because its abundant .To make profit it is a must to have scarcity . That is what intellectual property rights generate;scarcity of knowledge. When knowledge is shared it becomes abundant,when the share is limited ,this is where intellectual property rights kicks in, scarcity of knowledge is generated. Knowledge is part of mankind and it should be ease of reach by anyone any time . That is why Internet is invented,to share the knowledge of scientists between universities. When all knowledge is shared there will be always a motivation and drive to find new inventions instead of making profit from what is already found.

    Instead of intellectual property rights there should be organizations of preserving intellectual property to keep knowloadge intactc improved and distributed simultaneously.

  • We need to find other ways for creators to be compensated.

    We need to find other ways for creators to be compensated.
    Money is a finite resource. I find there is a greater problem if anyone, even an intellectual property creator gets overcompensated and in the other hand other creators can not find their audiences.After all every intellectual property that was created,was created based on something else, as some whould say ..They started by standing on the shoulders of giants to reach high enough.

    More over in scientific research and in engineering IPRs are hurting inovation and obstruct the use of knowledge to solve problems.That should be the incentive the needs of humanity not individual wealth.

  • Not fully abolished.

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • Not fully abolished

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • Not fully abolished

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • Not fully abolished

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • Not fully abolished

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • Not fully abolished

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • Not fully abolished

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • Not fully abolished

    A massive reform of intellectual property laws would be most appropriate. There should be laws protecting -some- rights regarding intellectual property, allowing others to freely "use" the property, but mandating royalties for a restricted period of time. There are always more options, it's both reasonable and sensible to embrace complication in our times yet we cut ourselves short with regardless simplicity.

  • 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.