They say the internet is best source of information when in reality it translates as the best source of information that can be stolen. Current intellectual property rights laws seem to be just pile of papers under a politician’s secretary’s desk. The irony is that it lacks the capability to respond to violations it was intended to contest. If the present conditions continue, new ideas are in danger of being copied and thus hampering their developments.
Intellectual property right basically means legal entitlement to intellectual works—such as names, inventions, trade secrets and written and recorded media— thus keeping it safe from being stolen. This is quite problematic because there the notion that no one can be original anymore exists and people don’t seem to care about a work being original at all. Sometimes violations may come in a form of reconstruction of a work, using another person’s work as a model, but if studied closely, they are merely imitations.
Violating other’s intellectual property is needless to say a very unethical action. Opportunists save themselves time and the very difficult task of coming up with something original. These violations can be simply called theft in the realm of physical property. Legal problems concerning physical property are much resolved compared to the vague realm of intellectual property. Violations such as theft can be easily charged to the violator of a physical property not legally entitled to them and the properties are properly given legal protection.
Protection of intellectual properties is the main objective of the law, but the broadness of the description of the law weakens its credibility. The term “intellectual property right” is one of the most controversial terms of the present era. It is still disputed and still globally unresolved. It is only half a millennium since the first patents and copyrights were made. Current laws seem to be unqualified to be the solution of eradicating violations to intellectual property rights. The formulation of such laws is obviously inadequate and requires in depth revisions since the problem is still rampant.
On the other hand, some critics of the laws says that intellectual property are just present because of they serve a utilitarian purpose. These laws are passed because it would be much convenient to everyone than having them not exist at all. Still, many argue that it is not utilitarian at all because it can only be put into use by cases in which evidences can give support. Unfortunately, ideas can’t be sealed in a plastic bag and presented to the court. And even if these laws are present, a system that can monitor the World Wide Web seems to be far from the capacity of current technology.
Since this an international problem, there is no legal system to resolve intellectual property violations if the parties involved are from different countries. Another big question is: who will be enforcing this law? There a group that is capable and has the resources to apprehended violators spread across the globe, so violators are still Not all authors have enough resources to have their work patented. Many authors don’t even bother to have their works copyrighted because they view the process of it as bothersome and expensive. Some even view it as inadequate and has weak credibility.
Many are resorting to publishing their work through the internet which is the feeding ground for violators. This poses a threat to the development of new technologies. Companies are now, more than ever dependent on the internet. Violators are not merely copy-and-paste people, some are high-skilled computer hackers that may be employed to steal vital information from the competition. The realistic solution is not to be dependent much on the internet until the intellectual property right law is enforceable and serve its original function.
Many is in doubt whether that time may come, but the important thing is that all of us should respect not just the law but the rights of our fellow human beings to create original works and be granted legal rights to those works. References Andersen B. 2006. Intellectual Property Rights: Innovation, Governance, and the Institutional. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Christensen C. M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Business School Press