K of IPR

1NC
IPR are wrong and epistemologically flawed Turns case Martin 9 [Brian, Teaches in the interdisciplinary area of Science, technology, and society at the University of Wollongong in Australia,
Information Li eration! "hallenging the "orruptions of Information #o$er%, http!&&danny'o('au&free)soft$are&advocacy&against*I#'html, +"oo,'- Accessed ./&.0&.1'

T!e idea of intellectual property !as a num"er of connections wit! t!e concept of t!e mar#etplace of ideas, a metaphor that is $idely used in discussions of free speech' To delve a it more deeply into the claim that intellectual property promotes development of ne$ ideas, it is therefore helpful to scrutinise the concept of the mar,etplace of ideas' 2 T!e image con$eyed "y t!e mar#etplace of ideas is t!at ideas compete for acceptance in a mar#et' As long as the competition is fair ) $hich means that all ideas and contri utors are permitted access to the mar,etplace ) then good
ideas $ill $in out over ad ones' Why3 Because people $ill recognise the truth and value of good ideas' 4n the other hand, if the mar,et is constrained, for e5ample y some groups eing e5cluded, then certain ideas cannot e tested and e5amined and successful ideas may not e the est ideas'2 Logically, t!ere is no reason w!y a mar#etplace of ideas !as to "e a mar#etplace of owned ideas! intellectual property cannot e strictly 6ustified y the mar,etplace of ideas' But ecause the mar,etplace metaphor is an economic one% t!ere is a strong tendency to lin# intellectual property wit! t!e mar#etplace of ideas' As discussed later, there is a lin, et$een these t$o concepts, ut not in the $ay their defenders usually imagine' 2 There are plenty of practical e5amples of the failure of the mar,etplace of ideas' &roups t!at are stigmatised or t!at lac# power seldom !a$e t!eir $iewpoints presented' T!is includes et!nic minorities% prisoners% t!e unemployed% manual wor#ers and radical critics of t!e status (uo% among many ot!ers' 7ven $hen such groups organise themselves to promote their ideas, t!eir $iews are often ignored w!ile t!e media focus on t!eir protests% as in the case of peace movement rallies and marches'2 8emonstra ly, good ideas do not always win out in t!e mar#etplace of ideas' To ta,e one e5ample, the point of $iew of wor#ers is fre(uently )ust as wort!y as t!at of employers' *et t!ere is an enormous im"alance in t!e presentation of t!eir respecti$e $iewpoints in the media' 4ne result is that (uite a few ideas t!at !appen to ser$e t!e interests of employers at t!e e+pense of wor#ers ) such as that the reason people don9t have 6o s is ecause they aren9t trying hard enough to find them ) are widely accepted alt!oug! t!ey are re)ected "y $irtually all informed analysts'2 There is a simple and fundamental reason for the failure of the mar,etplace of ideas! ine:uality, especially economic ine:uality' [.;- Per!aps in a group of people sitting in a room discussing an issue% t!ere is some prospect of a measured assessment of different ideas' ,ut if t!ese same people are isolated in front of t!eir tele$ision sets% and one of t!em owns t!e tele$ision station% it is o"$ious t!at t!ere is little "asis for testing of ideas' The reality is that po$erful and ric! groups can promote t!eir ideas wit! little c!ance of re"uttal from t!ose wit! different perspecti$es' As descri ed in chapter <, the mass media are po$erful enterprises that promote their o$n interests as $ell as those of governments and corporations'2 In circumstances $here participants are appro5imate e:uals, such as intellectual discussion among peers in an academic discipline, then the metaphor of competition of ideas has some value' But o$nership of media or ideas is hardly a prere:uisite for such discussion'

It is

t!e e(uality of power t!at is essential' To ta,e one of many possi

le e5amples, $hen employees in corporations lac, the

freedom to spea, openly $ithout penalty they cannot e e:ual participants in discussions =see chapter >?' 2 Some ideas

are good - in t!e sense of "eing $alua"le to society - "ut are unwelcome' .ome are unwelcome to powerful groups% suc! as t!at go$ernments and corporations commit !orrific crimes or t!at t!ere is a massi$e trade in tec!nologies of torture and repression t!at needs to "e stopped' 4thers are challenging to much of the population, such as that imprisonment does not reduce the crime rate or that financial
re$ards for good $or, on the 6o or grades for good school$or, are counterproductive' [.@- =Aeedless to say, individuals might disagree $ith the

socially $alua"le ideas t!at are unwelcome and marginalised'? The mar,etplace of ideas simply does not $or, to treat such un$elcome ideas $ith the
e5amples used here' The case does not rest on the e5amples themselves, ut on the e5istence of some seriousness they deserve' The mass media try to gain audiences y pleasing them, not y confronting them $ith challenging ideas' [.B- 2 The mar,etplace of ideas is often used to 6ustify free speech' The argument is that free speech is necessary in order for the mar,etplace of ideas to operate! if

some types of speec! are curtailed% certain ideas will not "e a$aila"le on t!e

mar#etplace and t!us t!e "est ideas will not succeed' This sounds plausi

le' But it is possi le to re6ect the mar,etplace of ideas $hile still defending free speech on the grounds that it is essential to human li erty'

.pecifically% state control of mar#et IPR is "ad Martin 9 [Brian, Teaches in the interdisciplinary area of Science, technology, and society at the University of Wollongong in Australia,
Information Li eration! "hallenging the "orruptions of Information #o$er%, http!&&danny'o('au&free)soft$are&advocacy&against*I#'html, +"oo,'- Accessed ./&.0&.1' If the mar,etplace of ideas doesn9t $or,, $hat is the solution /

T!e usual $iew is t!at go$ernments s!ould inter$ene to ensure t!at all groups !a$e fair access to t!e media' But this approach, ased on promoting e:uality of opportunity, ignores t!e fundamental pro"lem of economic ine(uality ' 7ven if minority groups have some limited chance to present their vie$s in the mass media, t!is can !ardly compensate for t!e massi$e power of go$ernments and corporations to promote t!eir $iews' In addition, it retains the role of the mass media as the central mechanism for disseminating ideas' So)called reform proposals eit!er retain t!e status (uo or introduce go$ernment censors!ip'2 2 Underlying the mar,et model is the idea of self)regulation! the Cfree mar,etC is supposed to operate $ithout outside intervention and, indeed, to operate est $hen outside intervention is minimised' In practice, e$en mar#ets in goods do not operate autonomously! the state is intimately involved in even the freest of mar,ets' In the case of the mar,etplace of ideas, t!e state is in$ol$ed "ot! in s!aping t!e mar#et and in ma#ing it possi"le , for e5ample y promoting and regulating the mass media' The $orld9s most po$erful state % t!e 0.% !as "een t!e dri$ing force "e!ind t!e esta"lis!ment of a !ig!ly protectionist system of intellectual property% using power politics at DATT, the Deneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade'2 2 "ourts may use the rhetoric of the mar,etplace of ideas ut
actually interpret the la$ to support the status :uo' Eor e5ample, speech is treated as free until it might actually have some conse:uences' Then it is curtailed $hen it allegedly presents a Cclear and present danger,C such as $hen peace activists e5pose information supposedly threatening to Cnational securityC' But speech $ithout action is pointless' True

li"erty re(uires freedom to promote one1s $iews in practice' [.02 Powerful groups !a$e t!e a"ility to do t!is' "ourts only intervene $hen others try to do the same'2 2 As in the case of trade generally, a property) ased Cfree mar,etC serves the interests of po$erful producers' In the case of ideas, t!is includes go$ernments and corporations plus intellectuals and professionals lin#ed wit! uni$ersities% entertainment% )ournalism and t!e arts' 3gainst suc! an array of intellectual opinion% it is $ery difficult for ot!er groups% suc! as manual wor#ers% to compete' [</- The
mar,etplace of ideas is a iased and artificial mar,et that mostly serves to fine)tune relations et$een elites and provide them $ith legitimacy'

T!e implication of t!is analysis is t!at intellectual property cannot "e )ustified on t!e "asis of t!e mar#etplace of ideas' The utilitarian argument for intellectual property is that o$nership is necessary to stimulate
[<.-2 production of ne$ ideas, ecause of the financial incentive' This financial incentive is supposed to come from the mar,et, $hose 6ustification is the mar,etplace of ideas' If, as critics argue, the mar,etplace of ideas is fla$ed y the presence of economic ine:uality and, more fundamentally, is an artificial creation that serves po$erful producers of ideas and legitimates the role of elites, then the case for intellectual property is unfounded' Intellectual

property can only ser$e to aggra$ate t!e ine(uality on w!ic! it is "uilt'

T!e alternati$e4 Re)ect all intellectual property rig!ts Martin 9 [Brian, Teaches in the interdisciplinary area of Science, technology, and society at the University of Wollongong in Australia,
Information Li eration! "hallenging the "orruptions of Information #o$er%, http!&&danny'o('au&free)soft$are&advocacy&against*I#'html, +"oo,'- Accessed ./&.0&.1'

T!e alternati$e to intellectual property is straig!tforward4 intellectual products s!ould not "e owned' T!at means not owned "y indi$iduals% corporations% go$ernments% or t!e community as common property' It means that ideas are availa le to e used y anyone $ho $ants to'2 4ne e5ample of ho$ this might operate is language, including the $ords, sounds and meaning systems $ith $hich $e communicate every day' Spo,en language is free for e$eryone to use' =Actually, corporations do control "its of language t!roug! trademar#s and slogans'?2 Another e5ample is scientific ,no$ledge' .cientists do researc! and t!en pu"lis! t!eir results' 3 large proportion of scientific #nowledge is pu"lic #nowledge' T!ere are some areas of science t!at are not pu"lic, such as classified military research' It is usually argued that t!e most dynamic parts of science are t!ose wit! t!e least secrecy' 5pen ideas can "e e+amined% c!allenged% modified and impro$ed' To turn scientific #nowledge into a commodity on t!e

mar#et% as is !appening wit! genetic engineering, argua

science'2 Ee$ scientists complain that they do not o$n the ,no$ledge they produce' Indeed, they are much more li,ely to complain w!en corporations or go$ernments try to control dissemination of ideas' Fost scientists receive a salary from a government, corporation or university' Their li$eli!oods do not depend on royalties from pu"lis!ed wor# '2 University
scientists have the greatest freedom' The main reasons they do research are for the intrinsic satisfaction of investigation and discovery ) a ,ey motivation for many of the $orld9s great scientists ) and for recognition y their peers' To

ly in!i"its

turn scientific #nowledge into intellectual property would dampen t!e ent!usiasm of many scientists for t!eir wor#'
Go$ever, as governments reduce their funding of universities, scientists and university administrations increasingly turn to patents as a source of income'2 Language and scientific ,no$ledge are not idealH indeed, they are often used for harmful purposes' It is difficult to imagine, though, ho$ turning them into property could ma,e them etter'2 The case of science sho$s that vigorous intellectual activity is :uite possi le $ithout intellectual property, and in fact that it may e vigorous precisely ecause information is not o$ned' But there are lots of areas that, unli,e science, have long operated $ith intellectual property as a fact of life' What $ould happen $ithout o$nership of information3 Fany o 6ections spring to mind'

3lt .ol$es
Re)ection of property rig!ts indi$idually is #ey to sol$ing Martin 9 [Brian, Teaches in the interdisciplinary area of Science, technology, and society at the University of Wollongong in Australia,
Information Li eration! "hallenging the "orruptions of Information #o$er%, http!&&danny'o('au&free)soft$are&advocacy&against*I#'html, +"oo,'- Accessed ./&.0&.1'

T!is is far more powerful t!an illicit copying' T!e met!ods of non$iolent action can "e used !ere% including noncooperation% "oycotts and setting up alternati$e institutions' By eing open a out the challenge, t!ere is a muc! greater c!ance of focussing attention on t!e issues at sta#e and creating a dialogue' ,y "eing principled in opposition% and "eing willing to accept penalties for ci$il diso"edience to laws on intellectual property% t!ere is a muc! greater c!ance of winning o$er t!ird parties' If harsh penalties are applied to those $ho challenge intellectual property% t!is could produce a "ac#las! of sympat!y' 5nce mass ci$il diso"edience to intellectual property laws occurs% it will "e impossi"le to stop'2 Something li,e that is already occurring' Because p!otocopying of copyrig!ted wor#s is so common% t!ere is seldom any attempt to enforce t!e law against small $iolators ) to do so $ould alienate too many people' "opyright authorities therefore see, other means of collecting revenues from intellectual property, such as payments y institutions ased on li rary copies' 2 Already t!ere is mass discontent in India o$er t!e impact of t!e world intellectual property regime and patenting of genetic materials% wit! rallies of !undreds of t!ousands of farmers' [<0- If t!is scale of protest could "e com"ined wit! ot!er actions t!at undermine t!e legitimacy of intellectual property% t!e entire system could "e c!allenged'

Kills .cience
6 7 IPR destroy scientific effecti$eness .tiglit8 19 [+oseph 7', Ao el #ri(e 7conomist, Go$ Intellectual #roperty Ieinforces Ine:uality%,
http!&&opinionator' logs'nytimes'com&</.1&/@&.J&ho$)intellectual)property)reinforces)ine:uality&, +"oo,'- Accesed ./&.0&.1'

3d$ocates of tough intellectual property rig!ts say t!at t!is is simply t!e price we !a$e to pay to get t!e inno$ation t!at% in t!e long run% will sa$e li$es' ItKs a trade)off! the lives of a relatively fe$ poor $omen today, versus the lives of many more $omen sometime in the future' But t!is claim is wrong in many ways' In this
particular case, it is especially $rong, ecause the t$o genes $ould li,ely have een isolated =discovered,% in FyriadKs terminology? soon any$ay, as part of the glo al Guman Denome #ro6ect' But it is $rong on other counts, as $ell '

&enetic researc!ers !a$e argued t!at t!e patent actually pre$ented t!e de$elopment of "etter tests% and so interfered wit! t!e ad$ancement of science' All ,no$ledge is ased on prior ,no$ledge, and y ma,ing prior ,no$ledge less availa le,
innovation is impeded' FyriadKs o$n discovery L li,e any in science L used technologies and ideas that $ere developed y others' Gad that prior ,no$ledge not een pu licly availa le, Fyriad could not have done $hat it did'

3T:: No Incenti$e
Money isnt t!e main incenti$e Martin 9 [Brian, Teaches in the interdisciplinary area of Science, technology, and society at the University of Wollongong in Australia,
Information Li eration! "hallenging the "orruptions of Information #o$er%, http!&&danny'o('au&free)soft$are&advocacy&against*I#'html, +"oo,'- Accessed ./&.0&.1' What a out the incentive to create3 Without the possi ility of $ealth and fame, $hat $ould stimulate creative individuals to produce $or,s of genius3 Actually, most

creators and inno$ators are moti$ated "y t!eir own intrinsic interest% not "y rewards' T!ere is a large "ody of e$idence s!owing, contrary to popular opinion, t!at rewards actually reduce t!e (uality of wor#' [<;- If the goal is etter and more creative $or,, paying creators on a piecewor# "asis% suc! as t!roug! royalties% is counterproducti$e'2 In a society wit!out intellectual property% creati$ity is li#ely to t!ri$e' Fost of the pro lems that are imagined to occur if there is no
intellectual property ) such as the e5ploitation of a small pu lisher that renounces copyright ) are due to economic arrangements that maintain ine:uality'

T!e soundest foundation for a society wit!out intellectual property is greater economic and political e(uality' This means not 6ust e:uality of opportunity, ut e:uality of outcomes' This does not mean
uniformity and does not mean levelling imposed from the top! it means freedom and diversity and a situation $here people can get $hat they need ut are not a le to gain great po$er or $ealth y e5ploiting the $or, of others' This is a ig issue' Suffice it to say here that there are strong social and psychological arguments in favour of e:uality' [<@-