Amazon.com Widgets

Should intellectual property rights be abolished?

  • 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.

  • 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.