Amazon.com Widgets

Should the definition of intellectual property be revised?

  • Yes or a new term created

    Yes I think we need to change how we look at the term intellectual property because of the internet. I think changing the definition is a good way to go. If we don't change the definition then we have to come up with a new word to use in newer circumstances.

  • The definition of intellectual property must be expanded

    Intellectual property is a large commodity right now, with the influx of the Internet. Self publishing, blogs, vlogs, and start up companies with big ideas are able to spring up all over the place. Many blogs are captured and simply put into news print without asking permission. Intellectual property needs to include all writing on the Internet as well as in blogs and should be protected by the copyright laws.

  • Change the definition.

    Yes, the definition of intellectual property should be revised due to the nature of the internet and freelance work alone. On a lot of content-writing mills, the writers get no ownership of their intellectual property and have to, by, contact, give it to the person purchasing the article. This alone redefined what intellectual property is and should be.

  • Keep it the way it is.

    The definition of intellectual property does not need to be revised. This is one area of legislation that does not need changing. Protecting intellectual property is more an issue in the modern age than ever before and this issue is going to get even more popular, but there is no reason to change the laws because people who create intellectual property are already covered.

  • A good definition

    No, the definition of intellectual property should not be revised. They have been using the same definition for a long time, and it has worked well. It is just describing an idea or object that someone comes up with and then has the right to make a patent to make it theirs only.


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