Comments for Do you believe in sharing or in owning? Do you rely on commons or on private property?

Maité Couvreur, Rémi Janssens, Mathilde Genard, Pauline Tuytel
Comment awaiting moderation.
Julien Slos, François Nihoul, Mathias Remacle et Hugo Nieuwenhuyse
1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore? It is a heated debate in the scientific literature to know whether intellectual property rights (thereafter “IPRs”) restrict or encourage creation…
Read more

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

It is a heated debate in the scientific literature to know whether intellectual property rights (thereafter “IPRs”) restrict or encourage creation (Our answer is highly inspired by and uses concepts and arguments for which S. GHOSH should be credited: S. GOSH, “How to build a Commons: is intellectual property constrictive, facilitating or irrelevant?” in Understanding Knowledge as commons , MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 209-246, E. OSTROM & C. HESS (ed.)).
It is our belief that most protected creations wouldn’t exist without protective IPRs. Of course, strong arguments pertain to the view according to which IPRs restrict creation: IPRs could be seen as aggressive because, through their function of exclusion (excluding other persons of the use of one’s creation) they may (in the case of copyrights) prevent creation of works strongly inspired or similar to preexisting ones. As far as patents go, it can be argued that patenting inventions could hinder scientific or technological progress development rate since they could bar others from using already scarce scientific resources. This is explained by the concept of “anticommons”. Michael Heller theoritized this concept in 1998 and speaks of the “tragedy of the anticommons” which lies, when it comes to knowledge, among other things, in the “potential underuse of scarce scientific resources caused by excessive intellectual property rights and overpatenting in biomedical research” (E. OSTROM & C. HESS, op. cit., 2007, p. 11. See also Heller, 1998). Of course, it could be argued the absence of patent rights could be compensated by the secrecy of one’s manufacturing process or even more simply the costs and know-how involved in said manufacturing, which would act as barriers to entry. However, in many trades, secrecy cannot be a substitute for patent rights, such as the pharmaceutical field, where relatively simple chemical analysis processes would be able to reveal a manufacturing process. In this same field (or in high-end, sophisticated technological fields), it should also be noted that high research costs justify protection by IRPs, since the immediate manufacturing of a generic, cheaper medication would prevent the initial manufacturer from obtaining a return on their research investment.

There is, according to us, an undeniable value (not to say necessity) to the existence of IPRs: even if in the hypothesis of their non-existence, some creations would still be rendered public by their authors, the vast majority of them would, appropriately, be deterred by the perspective of potential misappropriation of their work (freeriding). More than legal protection, IPRs offer, in our eyes, the social gratification that every creator would (and should) expect when publicly releasing their content. For example, considering copyrights in the artistical spheres, it could be argued that art is a means of human expression and not just a way to secure profit and that, therefore, IPRs are irrelevant in those spheres. However, that argument is reasonably debunked by the important components of social gratification and the everliving necessity to earn a living, which are not considered in this very legalist point of view. Patents are more often than not justified (beyond social gratification) by its role as incentive regarding innovation on a particular market and its role as enabler regarding the necessity of covering the costs involved in the development of the invention.

Furthermore, the balance between exclusion and necessity to render public so as not to hinder progress is – according to us – struck by the expiration mechanisms applied to IPRs. In any case, if such is their wish, a creator can still choose not to be protected by IPRs. This more “defensive” view of the IPRs enjoys, in our eyes, more credit than the aforementioned (more aggressive) view.

2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

It must be observed that “commons in ideas” (which more regularly are referred to in the scientific literature as “knowledge commons”), even though they can fall under the general concept of “commons” behave substantially differently than their “land” or “natural resources” counterparts. At least two notable differences ought to be mentioned here:
Subtractivity (rivalry): where natural resources are “subtractive” which means that their use by an individual or group of individuals reduces the benefits that can be drawn from them by others, knowledge on the contrary is typically something that tends to grow the more it spreads among individuals (“cornucopia of the commons”) (E. OSTROM & C. HESS (ed.), Understanding Knowledge as commons, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 49).
Clear boundaries, delimitation of the object of the commons: it goes without saying that natural/land commons, given their tangible nature, can be more or less precisely delimited in space, contrary to knowledge which is inherently intangible. This difference is particularly important when it comes to the governance of the commons: making rules applicable to a defined set of land is naturally different when managing ideas, information, data, etc. Even though knowledge can be confined within a closed area (library, database,…) the ability of the human mind to store such information combined with the ease that nowadays characterizes the duplication of such information theoretically renders the knowledge commons that much more challenging to govern than natural-resources based commons.

3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law

As exposed in our answer to the first question, we believe that even though art can be considered firstly as a means of human expression characterized by perpetual innovation (which would then not be stopped by the absence of a copyright), this narrow point of view is easily rebutted by its exclusion of other very important interests: the need of creators for social recognition (which could be heavily undermined by the absence of the copyright, through content misappropriation) and the more practical need to earn a decent living. Indeed, in a legal order where anyone’s creation could freely be used in any activity (even copying), creators would not have any incentive to disclose their work anymore.
However, obviously, some forms of art cannot easily be appropriated by others and would not necessarily be non-profitable in the absence of copyrights, which is the case for sculptures or very particular works of architecture.

Show less
Reply
G. Bonte, A. Cleret, L. Detry, R. De Wael et A-A. Koutra
Question 1. When a good is « open to all » it can very quickly turn into pure individual profit. We believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would probably not exist without those rights. For what purpose would one decide to invest in innovation when knowing that the minute his creation is made public everyone will not…
Read more

Question 1.
When a good is « open to all » it can very quickly turn into pure individual profit. We believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would probably not exist without those rights. For what purpose would one decide to invest in innovation when knowing that the minute his creation is made public everyone will not only have free access to it but will also be able to copy him in many ways and appropriate it? Most businesses and individuals use intellectual property rights as incentives to be creative and therefore focus on research and development. Without protection of ideas, they would not reap the full benefits of their inventions and would not risk inventing in that field. Intellectual property rights trigger innovation by creating ownership over ideas.

For example, when one writes a book, he is usually pleased to see that the book is protected. In addition, a writer most probably has access to the mass distribution of the book as well as the film adaptation. The financial interests hereafter should not be underestimated.

Another relevant example of that is Apple inc: as soon as it released their first smartphone, all the other mobile operators copied them. That is one of the reasons why this company has so many patents. It keeps the investment closers to its business.

However, fewer people believe that intellectual property is also often used only to hinder progress, to strengthen the position of large companies and to enrich lawyers rather than inventors (e.g. Tesla – All Our Patent Belong to you – 12th June 2014, https://www.tesla.com/fr_BE/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you).

Regarding intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore, a very good example are movies, especially with the rise of sites like Netflix, Youtube Originals, Amazon Prime, etc.).

Question 2.
A first main difference between the commons in land and the commons in ideas is that the latter is non-exclusive. My use of an idea does not interfere with its use by another person whereas the commons have a material limit. One can’t go beyond their materiality.

Another significant difference between the two is that most of the commons in land are consumable whereas the commons in ideas are not used up by their exploitation.

The commons in ideas could also be named “Public Intangible Goods”. As explained above, these goods are non-exclusive by their use and non-consumable in contrast with most of the goods of the commons in land.

Question 3.
The argument according to which there is no need to provide additional incentives to create is not convincing when the financial aspect of such creations is taken into account. Intellectual property rights are characterized by a very important patrimonial aspect which notably includes reproduction, creation of derivative works, distribution of copies and public representation. This aspect ought to be respected considering that innovation usually requires a significant budget. What could counterbalance the financial motivation for innovation in order to make it accessible to all ?

Beyond the financial and property aspect, other interests would not be protected if IP exclusivity was not granted by the law such as the right to respect the work, the right of authorship, etc. (moral aspect of copyright).

Show less
Reply
Jessica Biyeye et Laurence Sarens
Oui nous croyons que la plupart des créations n’existeraient pas si elles n’étaient pas protégées par les droits de propriété intellectuelle par exemple, les médicaments : si les entreprises pharmaceutiques n’ont aucune protection, elles n’ont aucun intérêt à investir dans la recherche. Mais cela vaut aussi pour toutes les autres biens (œuvres artistiques, marque, inventions technologiques, …). Tous les biens…
Read more

Oui nous croyons que la plupart des créations n’existeraient pas si elles n’étaient pas protégées par les droits de propriété intellectuelle par exemple, les médicaments : si les entreprises pharmaceutiques n’ont aucune protection, elles n’ont aucun intérêt à investir dans la recherche. Mais cela vaut aussi pour toutes les autres biens (œuvres artistiques, marque, inventions technologiques, …). Tous les biens demandant un certain investissement financier préalable ne viendraient probablement pas à exister. Par conséquent, tout ce qui concerne les produits technologique, les recherches médicales ne seraient pas produites contrairement à la musique et les livres. sans cette protection juridique, on aurait moins d’avancées technologies et médicales.

Show less
Reply
Aubéri Longrée, Marie Léonard, Jean De Meyere
1) Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore? To be able to provide an accurate answer, the question should be applied individually to the different intellectual property rights (IPR). In relation to trademarks…
Read more

1) Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

To be able to provide an accurate answer, the question should be applied individually to the different intellectual property rights (IPR).

In relation to trademarks (TM), IPR are essentials. The goal of a TM is to allow the consumer to make a connection between a product or a service and a trader. If anyone could use a concurrent TM, the consumer would not be able to make a thoughtful choice, as he would not know who is actually purchasing the product. Note that the absence of IPR regarding TM could however be counterbalanced by Consumer Protection Regulations or by laws prohibiting Unfair Competition.

In relation to Patents, IPR are essentials, especially in fields that require huge R&D investments producing innovation that are particularly sensitive to reverse engineering. With the absence of a patent system, the only way for businesses to protect their invention would be by protecting them as trade secrets. But not every invention can be kept as a secret : this is for example the case of some pharmaceutical products. For those, the absence of a patent system would suppress any incentive to innovate in several fields of technology.

In relation to Copyright, IPR play a less essential role. The fact that a creation would still be produced with or without copyright protection would mostly depend from the author’s objectives. Some artists do not really care about their work being reproduced or distributed by others, as can be shown by the success of the Creative Commons licensing system that allows for the free distribution of copyrighted works.
In relation with software and database protection, IPR play an important role as it allows the development of expensive softwares to be lucrative for IT companies. But the absence of any protection in that regard would not mean there won’t be any production in that field, as can be seen from the high success of both the Open Source and Free Softwares and the Open Data movement.

In conclusion, in regards to intangible goods, there would be none whose production would entirely stop with the absence of IPR protecting them. However, the absence of any financial incentive to innovate would mean there would be much less funding in the digital economy, meaning its development would be much slower.

2) There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

The commons in the area of ideas pretty much correspond to the public domain. The public domain contains every invention that is not or not anymore protected by an intellectual property rights.

A first difference that can be noted is that while the consumption of a resource in the ‘commons in land’ involves the fact that the resource won’t be available to others in the future. In the public domain, the consumption of a work would not mean its disappearance: the copy of a protected artwork does not equal the disparition of the artwork. This difference would mitigate the scarcity of resources that could be observed in a land of commons, but this scarcity won’t exist in the same extent in the public domain.

A second difference is that while the ‘commons in land’ exist in a physical world that is limited, this is not the case for the public domain. Human imagination is limitless and there will always be place for creation and innovation. The surexploitation and ‘overpopulation’ that could arise in the ‘commons in land’ would not have such negative effects in the public domain, as the scope of the public domain is practically infinite.

To conclude, let’s note that there is one big common point between the ‘commons of lands’ and the public domain: the absence of exclusivity will result in under-investment in both, as IPR are an important incentive for innovation.

3) Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?

Even though the absence of copyright would not mean that there won’t be any production of copyrighted works at all (cfr. supra), the ‘commons of ideas’ movement is not totally convincing in the field of copyright.

First, in relation to patrimonial rights, the absence of copyright would mean much less return on investment for authors. With such incentive gone, the number of new creation will decrease, as some authors simply would not want to work for fewer financial gains while others won’t be able to spend the same amount of time doing creative work – as they would need to find an alternative source of revenue (this second issue could be avoided by replacing the revenue from royalties by a government sponsored program).

Second, in relation to moral rights, the absence of copyright would mean an author would take the risk to create work for which he will get no recognition or whose modification he could not oppose. This aspect would further discourage the investment in creations.
But the author themselves won’t be the only one whose interests would lose protection: first, every actor on the market involved in some way with copyrighted creations (a theater’s owner, a company producing televisions, etc…) will suffer a loss from the absence of copyright; second, every person currently enjoying protection for a neighboring right of copyright (such as the interpreter of a song) will lose that protection and finally, society as a whole will be damaged as the decrease in creation would have a negative impact on the cultural sphere.

Show less
Reply
Francois Delatte
Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore? We do not think that most intellectual creations would not have existed if theses rights did not emerge. But it’s true to say that industry…
Read more

Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?
We do not think that most intellectual creations would not have existed if theses rights did not emerge. But it’s true to say that industry would not have developed as it is now if there had been no intellectual property rights. Indeed, the goal of the industries is to make profit. In this way, industries are always looking to be the best on the market by innovating, researching, developing. From all theses activities results some new technologies. If it was impossible to protect them, industries in their goal to make profit, would never have made the investments. All the things they would have developed could be instantly taken by other without making any investment.
But it’s also true to say that there would not have been no creations because they can also be protected by the secret (Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure). The secret is the perfect alternative to the lack of regulation and can be the best way to protect inventions in certains cases. But the disadvantage is that creation is never stimulated. As an example in the scope of the patents, inventions must be divulged to be protected by the patent. If there was no patent, the inventions would never be divulged and nobody could ever have access to the technologies developed.
This must be also counterbalanced by the fact that all industries are not equal in front of the regulation or not of the intellectual sphere. In some industries it may be easy to keep secret like in the alimentary industry, because it’s easy to get a similar product but pretty much impossible to get the same. But in the automotive industry, by the process of reverse engineering it’s really easier to copy some components of the car. This is the horizontal way to take the problem of the secret.
We can also take it vertically, we can pin that all enterprises in terms of size are not equal and can not protect their secrets in the same way, the little bakery has not the same means than a big pharmaceutical industry.
The question of the intangible goods is much different because it concerns goods that can’t be protected by patents because they must be a technical solution to a technical problem. So intangible goods like business models can’t be protected with European patents, which is not the same in the United States. Even if there is some initiatives to get them protected it’s not yet the case (Le monde, Faut il protéger le French-Tech ?, 2-3/09/2017).
So we should go on other rights like copyright or brands, and we think that it’s true to say that same intellectual creations would never have come to the fore because people would have been much more frightened to share their ideas, because they could have been taken by anyone.
2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?
The first main difference between commons in land and common in ideas is that common in ideas are non rival. It means that if someone’s using apart of the land, or is owning a such thing like a computer, no one can use it at the same time. That’s not the same for commons in ideas, many people can use the same idea, concept, at the same time. These are not restricted from a material point of view.
Another difference between commons in land and commons in ideas remains in the scope of patents. Indeed, as said earlier, patent can only protect technical solutions resolving technical issues. Furthermore, they need to be described completely in the patent procedure in order to see if the invention is completely new or not, which is pretty much impossible in the scope of ideas.
3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?
We think that copyright is also a right which can encourage to create, because copyright, beside it’s goal to protect the artistic creations of the authors can also be an alternative while there is a problem with a brand or a patent. The copyright is entirely part of the creative sphere and it should be protected in a way he encourages the creativity because it can be a safety net for the companies which needs it.
We can imagine the case of a brand with get cancelled by a tribunal, and the only way for the company to defend itself is to invoke the rights it has gotten by the way of a written contract with the author of the logo.
An other interest which would not be protected if there was no copyright is about all the moral rights of the artists. Beside the economic dimension it can happen that the work of the artist can have a sentinel dimension which has also to be protected by law.
There’s many moral rights concerning copyrights which cannot be dissociated from it and they could never have existed without this regulation. There are plenty of these, like the right to the paternity, to the integrity, the right to adapt it,… XI.165, XI.166 CDE.

Loix Marie
Mennig Eugénie
van de Walle Charlotte
Michel François
Delatte François

Show less
Reply
François-Guillaume Eggermont
Comment awaiting moderation.
Joyce Madeleine Kahe Mbang, Thibault Gregoire, Adrien Dumonceaux, Fanny Denayer
1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore? No. I believe that certain creations could be efficiently protected without intellectual property rights as such. Of course, we can protect our idea through…
Read more

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

No. I believe that certain creations could be efficiently protected without intellectual property rights as such. Of course, we can protect our idea through a patent’s right, but it’s not the only way to do it. Another means to protect our creation is not by filing a patent, but also by keeping it secret. A well-known example of this technique is the Coca Cola recipe.

It’s also possible to protect your rights and to improve your technology through a patent pledge. Here we can speak about Tesla that opened the access to all its patents. The message was “All our patent are belong to you”. It follows the spirit of the open-source movement for the advancement of the electric vehicle technology. The message is clear, Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO is not convinced that a patent is the better way to improve technology. The only condition is to use Tesla’s technologies with good faith. I guess that good faith means that if a company developed new techniques through Tesla’s patent, the last one gets a right to use this technology in return.

Another way to protect your ideas without using intellectual property is the Run lean and fast technique. Basically, A company launches its new innovations in a very fast way, so the competitor does not have time to plagiarize that new innovation. So, we can observe that there is an increasing place for sharing in competitive sectors. Privacy is no longer the only way to protect and improve your invention.

An example of intangible good that would probably never come to the fore if it’s not trough intellectual property right is the copyright. I believe that the only way to protect the creation of an author is trough copyright.

2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they. How would you call the commons in area of ideas?

The Common land is the land owned collectively by a number of people, or by one person, but over which other people have certain traditional rights, such as to allow their livestock to graze upon it, to collect wood, etc.

The Commons in ideas is the fact that nowadays, less and less companies decide to protect and improve their technology trough intellectual property. There is a great development of the open-sourcing.

The first difference is that the possibility of sharing the lands is limited by nature. Land resources are limited, you cannot share what doesn’t exist. The commons in ideas, for their part have no limit in the sense that human creativity is endless.

3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected

Concerning copyright, we think that it’snt necessary to protect more the copyright.
The ratio-legis of copyright law is to stimulate creation, by allowing a viable economic activity to the creator, and to influence the diffusion of the creation to the public. The concept of create must therefore be understood in a broad way. This concept of create is already strongly encompassing. We do not see why we should create other copyright or strengthen it.

On the other hand, the copyright regime is overtaken by the advent of new property. The conditions and scope of copyright are not suited to the advent of these new properties. In our opinion, it is not necessary to modify the copyright regime, but rather to create new rights that will regulate the new assets (a right to personal data, a right to domain names, a right to online reputation, …).

Show less
Reply
Maxence Poivre
1) We think that if intellectual property right would not exist, a lot of creations would not have seen the light of day in some sectors. For example, we could imagine that a lot of drugs or vaccines would not exist today. Why pharmaceutical companies would develop new products if they cannot protect them from other companies? Another example could be…
Read more

1) We think that if intellectual property right would not exist, a lot of creations would not have seen the light of day in some sectors.
For example, we could imagine that a lot of drugs or vaccines would not exist today. Why pharmaceutical companies would develop new products if they cannot protect them from other companies?
Another example could be the book: Why an author would write a book if he cannot be remunerated for it? We could probably enjoy some books because some people could write it by passion, but we would probably have less books than today.
2) The first main difference is that the commons in land and the commons in ideas is that the commons in land are limited, not the commons in ideas. So, you can’t abuse of the commons in land.
The second main difference is the fact that the benefits of new ideas will not be concentrated between the hands of one person.
We think that we could call the “commons in idea” the knowledge of humanity.

3) The “deal” with copyright and other IP is that after some time the protected right becomes communal and everybody has acces to it. In a world without IP, the intencive to innovate would probably still exist but mostly behind closed doors, meaning that the IP may never be public if kept secret well enough.

Show less
Reply
LABRUYERE Laurie TOSSENS Amandine MEFTAH Tarik BERNARD Aurélien
1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore ? Il est légitime de penser que, sans les droits intellectuels pour assurer la protection de leurs créations, les personnes créatives/inventives auraient moins de motivation…
Read more

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore ?

Il est légitime de penser que, sans les droits intellectuels pour assurer la protection de leurs créations, les personnes créatives/inventives auraient moins de motivation pour développer des idées.
En effet, rien ne leur garantirait que des concurrents malintentionnés copient leurs idées ou se les approprient.
Ainsi, nous pouvons affirmer que les différentes formes de propriété intellectuelle sont mises en place dans le but de favoriser le progrès technologique et l’émergence d’œuvres nouvelles.
Si on prend pour exemple le brevet, celui-ci confère un monopole temporaire à son titulaire lui fournissant ainsi les incitations nécessaires à l’innovation. Mais ce monopole est assorti d’une obligation de divulgation qui poussera la société à tirer rapidement parti de l’invention brevetée.
Concernant les biens incorporels, il existe notamment le droit d’auteur qui constitué de prérogatives que la loi reconnaît aux créateurs d’œuvres littéraires et artistiques. Ainsi les auteurs pourront contrôler l’exploitation qui est faite de leur création en plus de protéger l’intégrité de celle-ci.
Le but du droit d’auteur est de favoriser la création, en garantissant à ceux qui s’y consacrent la possibilité de rendre cette activité économique viable et de permettre la diffusion de la création dans le public en y associant les créateurs.

2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

Comme l’avait relevé Ostrom, les “commons in land” ont pour différences qu’il s’agit de biens appartenant en commun aux habitants d’une communauté rurale et destinés à être employés aux besoins de la commune en général, ou des particuliers qui la composent.

3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?

Non, cela n’est pas convaincant. Il faut prendre le droit d’auteur dans son aspect économique, en effet, il est important de préciser que ce droit a pour objectif d’apporter une solution à la contradiction entre financement des auteurs et libre accès aux œuvres. L’instauration du droit d’auteur vise à rendre l’œuvre de l’esprit exclusive, en octroyant à l’auteur un monopole d’exploitation sur sa découverte. Ainsi, le droit d’auteur permet à l’auteur de couvrir ses frais de création, et ce faisant, de percevoir une rémunération par l’exploitation pécuniaire du monopole qui lui est conféré. Il obtient donc une motivation supplémentaire à la création car il peut subvenir à ses besoin grâce au droit d’auteur.

Show less
Reply
Blanche de Lannoy, Amaury Grosfils, Nicolas Gallet, Laurent Faestraets, Victor Leblanc
1. First of all, we believe that intellectual property rights play an important role in the field of inventions as they can truly serve as incentives for inventors. Most of them would probably not have worked on their inventions (the invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process that can sometimes take years), if they…
Read more

1. First of all, we believe that intellectual property rights play an important role in the field of inventions as they can truly serve as incentives for inventors. Most of them would probably not have worked on their inventions (the invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process that can sometimes take years), if they knew that they would not get any rewards for their creations. It would be false to say that every inventor in the world is only motivated by money, but it is an important part of the job. The purpose of patents for example is to encourage the development and disclosure of new inventions. Furthermore, in a globalized world, it is also essential for inventors to protect their creations because it now clearly became easier to steal ideas from other people wherever they are in the world.

If we take a look at recent innovations, the Apple iPhone is a good example. The very first iPhone was unveiled and 2007 and it is since one of the world’s most iconic devices. This invention is a logical evolution of mobile phones but it is clear that the invention of this device shaped the whole mobile phones industry. At the time of his resignation, Steve Jobs was the principal inventor or one inventor among several of not less that 313 Apple patents (most of them are design patents). These patents largely contributed to the success of Apple by making the company an iconic brand that everyone can easily recognize. If their products weren’t protected by intellectual property rights, other companies would have benefit from Steve Jobs’ inventions and the unbelievable current development of smartphones would maybe have known a different path.

Finally, one of the most obvious examples of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore or that would not been as developed as today are mobile phone applications. This industry is one of the fastest growing and highest earning industries. Because of the widespread popularity and highly competitive nature of this industry, mobile app creators must protect their word in order to prevent other competitors from infringing and profiting their work. They can protect the app’s brand through trademark law and the app by itself through copyright law as apps are an original work of authorship designed by a developer and fixed in a tangible medium (mobile devices).

2. The commons in land are material, finite and sometimes scarce. As Hardin have said, the ruins of the commons (in land) are inevitable as individuals cannot internalize the negative consequence that their consumption might have on the resource. When commons are free to use, it is complicating to assure their long-term sustainability.

For commons in ideas, they are immaterial, and they can be taken easily for appropriation by others. They are different from commons in land in the sense that they are resources that cannot be exhausted, they are not as potable water for example. Ideas are infinite, and, in many cases, they are easily replaceable.

Furthermore, unlike commons in land (that are then rival, excludable and characterised by scarcity), commons in ideas or knowledge commons are characterised by abundance (they are non-rival and non-excludable and thus, in principle, not scarce, so not impelling competition and compelling governance).

3. The world would be different if there were no copyrights or intellectual property laws. Intellectual property rights have determined the shape of various business models and we can say that they have several benefits. If they had never existed, society would most likely have invented alternative business models.

In a world without copyright, the business of music would be very different for example. People will always like music and there will then still be musicians on this planet. Recordings would not be a source of income anymore while live performances would remain a safe bet. According to us, we think that there will not be less music or less quality but rather less money in the music business. It will then be probably more difficult to earn a significant amount of money thanks to music and there will be fore sure less large record labels.

We believe that open source would be the norm with all the positive consequences that a free access to knowledge or culture may have. On the other side, it is possible that creative people would have lost their sense of creativity by fear that others would steal their creations. For a writer, if people could freely copy his work and use it, what would be his motivation for writing? Copyright and intellectual property laws protect creativity and innovation and are really essential for people that depend of their creativity and creations.

Bibliography :

http://historycooperative.org/the-history-of-the-iphone/ (01/10/18)
https://www.ipeg.com/patents-role-in-apples-success/ (01/10/18)
http://dunnerlaw.com/cover-your-app-protecting-mobile-applications-through-intellectual-property-law/ (01/10/18)
https://www.ft.com/content/afc5377e-1026-11e3-a258-00144feabdc0#axzz2hdc2IvIj (01/10/18)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full (01/10/18)

Show less
Reply
Melian Hacquin, Florent Loriaux, Jean Hounsou, Sara Moreau
1.No, so I cannot give examples. Many think that people would stop creating if there were no such rights, but however there is ample evidence to the contrary. During the centuries predating the IP era, there have been lots of works that we keep admiring today and, more to the point, the IP era would not exist without the IP-less era…
Read more

1.No, so I cannot give examples. Many think that people would stop creating if there were no such rights, but however there is ample evidence to the contrary.
During the centuries predating the IP era, there have been lots of works that we keep admiring today and, more to the point, the IP era would not exist without the IP-less era that predates it. Would we have a modern world if the discovery of fire or the wheel had been so protected?
2.Ideas are ideas, are immaterial and the main consequence of that fact, often used by e-pirates is that copying an idea or any digital work does not deprive its owner from using it.
The second difference is that we cannot foresee what the future of ideas might be, which makes the “world of ideas” limitless, unlike land or any kind of physical resource that are part of a computable pool.
3.First of all, the answer to the question “is this convincing in the field of copyright” is an obvious no, but of course the real question is: are copyrights needed at all. The answer is mostly sociological.
As explained in answer 1, most people nowadays believe that in today’s world, creativity needs to be protected by law. But this was not always the case: writing a good limerick that was copied by all popular singers used to be a mark of success. As of today, entities like Mozilla produced free software (the Firefox web browser) so appreciated that it has become an industry standard.
If no copyright existed, some companies like pharmaceutical companies (for example) would be endangered but on the other hand, the often dire competition existing between pharma labs entails a waste of research resources if observed from a perspective of a finite world. As that perspective is often eschewed, there is no real conundrum from the law point of view: if property is commonly accepted as a fundamental right , then ideas must be defended – if only because even though ideas are immaterial, their implementation can provide very material benefits.
A shift to cooperation rather than competition would of course make the IP notion obsolete, but it falls off the limits of our societal model

Show less
Reply
Laure Vandeputte, Violette Lebrun et Laura Berghman
1. Oui, je pense que la plupart des créations/inventions n’auraient pas vu le jour sans la protection de ces droits. Lors du premier cours, nous parlions du secteur pharmaceutique. Le secteur pharmaceutique ne serait pas si développé aujourd’hui sans la protection conférée par le brevet qui leur confère une source de revenus. De même dans l’industrie musicale, si un chanteur…
Read more

1. Oui, je pense que la plupart des créations/inventions n’auraient pas vu le jour sans la protection de ces droits. Lors du premier cours, nous parlions du secteur pharmaceutique. Le secteur pharmaceutique ne serait pas si développé aujourd’hui sans la protection conférée par le brevet qui leur confère une source de revenus. De même dans l’industrie musicale, si un chanteur ne disposait pas du droit d’auteur, il devrait changer de métier et ne serait plus incité à travailler pour rencontrer les attentes du public. Je crois que les droits de propriété intellectuelle favorisent l’innovation et constituent une source indispensable de revenus pour de multiples acteurs économiques.

2. Les commons in land sont définis, déterminés et sont donc épuisables. On n’aura jamais plus que la surface de la terre qui est la nôtre. En revanche, les commons in ideas font partie d’un ensemble indéfini qui peut s’étendre à l’infini. Les commons in land sont tangibles, ils font partie de la réalité concrète, tandis que les idées sont intangibles et font partie de la réalité abstraite.

3. Il y a nécessairement un impact sur le droit des marques puisque si tout le monde peut la copier, la marque n’a plus aucune valeur. Cela peut également perturber le droit de la concurrence car si tout le monde reprenait la marque, il n’y aurait plus de véritable valeur économique.
Ensuite, je pense que le fait de ne pas réglementer la propriété intellectuelle pourrait fausser le consommateur. En effet, une copie de la marque le fausserait dans le sens où la marque est associée à un indice de qualité pour le consommateur et il ne pourrait plus s’y retrouver, se repérer puisqu’il aurait plusieurs copies face à lui.
Enfin, cela aurait nécessairement un impact sur la valeur de l’entreprise, son goodwill.

Show less
Reply
Darre Maxime, Detaille Amal, Stauffer Olivia, Javaux Louise, Léonard Guillaume
1) Pour un particulier, il est essentiel, nécessaire et suffisant que les droits de la propriété intellectuelle existent et lui garantissent une protection, une exclusivité d’exploitation adéquate correspondant à la récompense afférente au risque, à l’investissement et au temps dédiés à la création, à la recherche et au développement dudit projet, bien ou service. Par exemple, le milieu de la…
Read more

1) Pour un particulier, il est essentiel, nécessaire et suffisant que les droits de la propriété intellectuelle existent et lui garantissent une protection, une exclusivité d’exploitation adéquate correspondant à la récompense afférente au risque, à l’investissement et au temps dédiés à la création, à la recherche et au développement dudit projet, bien ou service.
Par exemple, le milieu de la recherche pharmaceutique impose un investissement colossal, aussi bien financier qu’en terme d’années. La recherche, les études, le développement et la commercialisation d’un médicament prend environs 7 à 10 ans. Pendant cette première décennie, aucun bénéfice n’est retiré en terme financier. Ce n’est qu’après avoir découvert, après avoir testé, après avoir fait valider et avoir reçu le permis de mise en vente, que les sociétés pharmaceutiques retireront un bénéfice.
Sans une protection adéquate, personne -privée- n’irait investir autant. En effet, si une personne seule -morale ou physique- devait investir sans pouvoir avoir un retour sur investissement, la recherche serait impensable et les initiatives seraient freinées.
Par contre, si le système de la propriété privée n’existait pas, ce serait l’état qui prendrait en charge les recherches et les développements pour des biens et/ou services nécessaires. Dès lors, ça serait de l’ordre des Communs, car au final, ce que l’état fait, recherche, c’est par l’investissement découlant de nos impôts, donc de tous.

2)Les biens communs en terre sont situés à un endroit précis et le nombre est limité : par exemple, une forêt ne comporte que X arbres, un champ ne comporte que X champignons, etc. Ils ont une utilité particulière et sont à la portée de tous. C’est le cas, par exemple, d’une forêt communale. Celle-ci est accessible à tous, moyennant le respect de certaines règles. Par exemple, chaque citoyen peut s’y promener, peut cueillir certaines fleurs, peut récolter des champignons ou encore chasser lorsque c’est la période.
A contrario, le monde des idées n’est pas situé à un endroit précis. Il est accessible à tous. De plus, le monde des idées n’est pas limité en nombre. La seule véritable limite est celle de l’imagination. Par exemple, vous remarquez qu’aller tous les jours chercher de l’eau dans un ruisseau situé à 4 kilomètres est très épuisant et chronophage. Dès lors, vous tenterez de trouver une solution à ce problème : ne plus devoir y aller chaque jour et/ou ne plus être limité par la capacité que vous pouvez transporter.
Trouver une solution, un moyen adéquat, ne peut faire l’objet d’un droit restrictif, exclusif de propriété.
Dans le domaine des idées, certaines choses ne peuvent faire l’objet d’appropriation exclusive sous peine d’empêcher la création par d’autres personnes. Par exemple, si vous avez l’idée, en tout premier, d’exploiter du bois afin de créer des meubles. Vous ne pouvez pas vous approprier cette idée, ce concept. En effet, sans quoi nombres d’objets -comme la roue, le moulin, les flèches, …- n’auraient pas vus le jour. Par contre, vous pouvez vous approprier l’idée de créer, à partir du bois, un meuble en particulier.
Il en est de même pour le concept de « roue ». Si un droit exclusif portait sur cela, personne ne pourrait le décliner pour d’autres usages, comme la voiture, dynamo, … En effet, il s’agit d’un concept rudimentaire essentiel à la collectivité.

3)Le droit d’auteur est un domaine particulier. En effet, pour que quelque chose soit protégé par ledit droit, il faut que l’auteur ait projeté un part de sa personnalité. Dès lors, protection ou pas, seul l’auteur est capable de projeter sa personnalité, donc de créer l’objet particulier.
Par contre, nous ne trouvons pas cela convaincant en ce sens que créer n’est pas la seule préoccupation de l’auteur. Il est nécessaire de protéger « l’après création ». Partons de l’exemple d’un grand peintre. Si ses peintures acquièrent une grande valeur, c’est parce qu’elles sont uniques et rares, ce qui fait qu’elles deviennent spéciales, appréciables. S’il n’était pas interdit de reproduire une œuvre artistique sans l’aval du primogéniteur, comme c’est le cas dans certains pays, les peintures du grand peintre n’auraient plus tant de valeur, vu que le nombre en serait multiplié (en considération que les techniques de reproduction offrent une reproduction fidèle et sans faille).
L’autre intérêt majeur qui serait mis à mal si la loi n’accordait pas l’exclusivité du droit d’auteur réside dans l’aspect budgétaire. Bien que nous ayons déjà abordé ce point dans notre exemple ci-dessus, le droit d’auteur protège l’œuvre, mais offre également l’exclusivité à l’auteur de l’optimisation financière qu’il pourrait en retirer en concédant une licence, par exemple.

Show less
Reply
Hadrien Berton, Sylvain Alberti, Camille Delcourt
1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore? Yes. An example would be the patent. If everyone can freely appropriate a new idea and there is no protection over that idea, nobody would…
Read more

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?
Yes. An example would be the patent. If everyone can freely appropriate a new idea and there is no protection over that idea, nobody would invest in researches and developments over that invention because all the money for it would be spend in profit of the whole community. Same argument also applies on trademark law. If you couldnt register a trademark, everybody could use it and there will be no profits for the person who invented or created that trademark.
2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?
The commons in ideas doesnt have any borders unlike the commons in land. The first one is immaterial and tangible while the second one is material and intangible. The commons of ideas doesnt have a protection as strong as the commons in land. The commons in land belongs to the State, and is part of its sovereignty and you can not extend it as much as you want, but that is not the case with the commons in ideas. Everybody can have a new idea without any restriction so we could extend the commons in ideas as much as we want.
3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?
It is not really convincing in the field of copyright because the person who got the idea wouldnt have any credit for it and everybody could use that idea as they want and act like it was their idea in the first place. It would also be a barrier for innovation. The other interests that would not be protected would be for example the remuneration of the author of that idea as well as the reputation that that person would eventually get for having that idea.

Show less
Reply
André Cédric, Darms Manon, Deprez Charlotte, Zaprzalka Tatyana
1) Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore? L’une des principales raisons d’être des droits de propriété intellectuelle est l’encouragement qu’ils suscitent envers la communauté dans sa création. Sans droits de protection,…
Read more

1) Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

L’une des principales raisons d’être des droits de propriété intellectuelle est l’encouragement qu’ils suscitent envers la communauté dans sa création. Sans droits de protection, les individus sont moins enclins à créer, inventer et ce car il n’est aucun bénéfice à en tirer. Le fait de pouvoir protéger une œuvre naissante permet à celui qui la conceptualise de pouvoir se l’approprier et récolter une certaine exclusivité, un cachet ou bien encore une certaine reconnaissance de la communauté. Néanmoins, même si ces droits sont essentiels en vue d’encourager une certaine création, ils peuvent être également un frein si une invention fait l’objet d’une certaine exclusivité à long terme. D’où, comme en matière de brevet pour ne citer qu’un exemple, la limitation de ces droits dans le temps ou encore dans certaines formes. Ainsi, par exemple, s’il n’était pas un brevet accordé pour la découverte de nouveaux traitements médicamenteux, les industries pharmaceutiques ne s’investiraient pas dans la recherche et ce car elles n’en tireraient aucun profit. Ce brevet ne peut cependant à long terme empêcher d’autres firmes de produire ce même traitement en vue d’éviter une situation monopolistique sur le marché. Il en va de même avec les inventions automobiles,… Pour ce qui est des biens incorporels, cela pourrait être un logiciel ou programme informatique, un site internet,…

2) There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

Deux des principales différences entre les “commons in land” et “commons in ideas” est tout d’abord l’immatérialité des « commons in ideas » comparé au « commons in land ». Les idées communes font parties d’un patrimoine immatériel, intangible alors que les biens communs qui sont eux matériels sont beaucoup plus facile à définir et appréhender. Une autre différence se trouve dans le caractère illimité des idées communes qui peuvent à toiut moment émaner d’un esprit alors que les biens communs sont en nombre limité de par leur création. Les « commons of ideas » sont ainsi caractérisées par des idées et concepts de l’esprit que ne sont attribués à personne et sont partagés par les individus en société, ces idées et concepts sont illimités et immatériels.

3) Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?

Il en va de même pour le droit d’auteur en particulier que pour l’ensemble des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Sans protection garantie, bon nombre d’individus ne seraient pas enclin à produire des œuvres et ce par manque d’exclusivité ou d’attribution de ces dernières. Cependant, pour ce qui est du droit d’auteur, l’on ne peut pas parler d’une protection intégrale et ce car en matière d’œuvre littéraire ou cinématographique, la protection accordée aux particuliers s’attache plus à la forme qu’au fond, aux idées générales qui, si elles rencontrent un succès important seront reprises et retravaillées. Cela se voit notamment en matière de littérature de loisir et au cinéma. Pour ce qui est des ouvrages scientifiques, cela reste néanmoins différents.

Ainsi, malgré cette protection limitée, l’on peut toujours voir une forte implication des individus dans le domaine de la création littéraire, cinématographique et autre.

Néanmoins, ce droit d’auteur joue un rôle protecteur quant à certains autres intérêts à savoir non pas la protection entière de l’œuvre mais le droit d’y voir associer son nom, d’être citer, de pouvoir tirer les fruits de son travail personnel,… tout ceci ne serait pas possible sans une certaine protection.

Show less
Reply
Maite Couvreur - Remi Janssens - Mathilde Genard
Comment awaiting moderation.
Sobry Nelly
1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore? (In my point of view), creations precede intellectual rights. But of course, I will more easily create if am protected by those rights. In a…
Read more

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

(In my point of view), creations precede intellectual rights. But of course, I will more easily create if am protected by those rights. In a system where the economy is advocated, people wants to make profit. If their creations are not protected by intellectual property rights, which means that they will win less, they won’t continue. Indeed, intellectual rights are a “motor” for the creators, who create easier knowing that their creations will be protected by those rights.
At the opposite, some people create for themselves or to simply change things in the world without any pecuniary thought. Those people don’t mind if their creations will be protected by intellectual rights.

2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

Hardin’s idea is to say that sharing a property among all is destructive. He makes his point by giving the example of a field that must be shared between several people. Everyone will maximize the value of his communal rights and the field will no longer be cultivable. Here, the resource exists but we want to limit its exploitation thanks to property rights. On the other side (commons in ideas), we want to encourage innovations by giving rights to creators.

Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?

There are two visions of property rights. Some people defends the idea that every information, images and ideas, previously seen as a common heritage should be transformed in a private property. The other one wants to create a “new common” where an egalitarian redistribution of intangible assets is made and where everybody works together to find innovative solutions. In the second scenario, there is no place for copyright. Any idea will be everyone’s idea. Furthermore, people will no longer make money of their ideas and in this vein, they won’t create anymore.
If you say that there is no need to have copyright, everyone could steal the ideas of the others. First, it’s not an incentive for people to create. Secondly, the interests of the author wouldn’t be protected at all, he would have no defense method against people who would have steal his idea.

Show less
Reply
Alexandre Delbart, Georges Kramvoussanos, Jean Deborsu, Jeanne Bastin, Marie Delcommune, Seyda Taki
1. We believe that some creations protected by intellectual property rights would exist even in the absence of those rights. If we think about pieces of art created by what is usually called « artists » (such as writers, painters, performers, singers,…), we don’t think that their priority, in the process of creation, is to wondering on whether what they…
Read more

1. We believe that some creations protected by intellectual property rights would exist even in the absence of those rights. If we think about pieces of art created by what is usually called « artists » (such as writers, painters, performers, singers,…), we don’t think that their priority, in the process of creation, is to wondering on whether what they are going do is going to be lawfully protected — most of all, it depends of the context where they want communicate their creation. Artists creates something because they might have some wish, some flame on inspiration « forcing » them to put their ideas out of their minds into their favorite medium (a song, a book, a novel,…). Maybe the fact of having their ideas protected is a priority for some artists. But most of them, we think, create something firstly because they strongly want to do so.

As far as we’re concerned, one member of our group likes writing and she is a member of a forum of authors in Internet. They usually post some of their novels on blogs or even in the forum, which is a public place where even non-members of the website can go and read the texts. Most of those persons like sharing their texts freely in such a matter that they can — virtually — met readers who let them know what they think about what they’ve written. It’s a collective place where constructive readers, who want to help authors to improve their writings by commentating (“commenter”) it by telling authors how they feel while reading, etc…which is useful to know when you’re an author.
But she knows some of them that are reluctant to share their texts because they fear that someone could steal their ideas.

On the other hand, the answer would be very different concerning the patents in the field of the pharmaceutical industry or technological industry for exemple. She remembers a case that a former teacher told her, about the fact that big pharmaceutical companies based in Europe invented a medicine against AIDS. This affair occurred in South Africa in 2003 — but is maybe still existent today. In a nutshell, the pharmaceutical companies, which had the patents on the vaccine, didn’t wanted to sell the vaccine at a lower price — than the price existing in Europe — to populations in South Africa, in such a way that they could afford it — this affairs was leaded by associations representing the seropositive peoples in South Africa. Would those companies produce the medicine, knowing that they wouldn’t be paid as much as what they expected ? This leads to complicate questions, because they maybe have made ten years of expensive researches before having a medicine that can be sold. In this point of view, and to answer the question, we wouldn’t say that the « creation » (the medicine) would exist without the existence of the patent rights. Even though we don’t know some but, maybe, somewhere, a pharmaceutical company shares freely medicine very useful and helpful for a part of the population.

2. Firstly, a difference between the commons in land and the commons in ideas is that the goods existing under intellectual property are non-rivalrous, i.e. that « they have the ability to be simultaneously enjoyed by unlimited agents without diminishment » (https://www.udayton.edu/directory/law/documents/copyright-and-the-tragedy-of-the-common_reilly.pdf). In others words, several people might have an utility, an use, of those ideas without putting down (reducing) their value. For instance, the data.

Secondly, another difference between them both is the inexhaustible character (« l’inépuisabilité ») of the commons in ideas, contrary to the commons in lands. For instance, again, the data, of even others creations. A song can be gives off (« diffusé ») an unlimited number of times at the radio.

Thirdly, there is no state sovereignty upon some (most ?) goods protected under intellectual property, contrary to the commons in lands such as electricity.

In the area of ideas, the « commons » might be the goods — some of them being intangible — released in the public domain.

3. Le droit d’auteur confère à l’auteur des droits patrimoniaux (principalement les droits de reproduction et de communication au public) (Art. XI.165, § 1er CDE). Tout acte relevant du périmètre d’un des droits exclusifs de l’auteur devra, préalablement à son accomplissement, être autorisé par lui. Cette autorisation pourrait être octroyée en contrepartie de redevances. L’auteur aura donc intérêt à exploiter au maximum son œuvre, en concédant notamment de nombreuses licences à des tiers. Cependant, les droits patrimoniaux font l’objet de nombreuses exceptions, créant des situations dans lesquelles l’auteur ne pourra plus s’opposer à l’exploitation économique de son œuvre. (Art. XI. 189 et s. CDE) Certaines d’entre elles ne trouveront à s’appliquer que si l’œuvre a fait l’objet d’une divulgation préalable et licite. Par conséquent, l’auteur pourrait être réticent à divulguer son œuvre. Toutefois, l’application de certaines exceptions devrait être assortie d’une « compensation équitable » dans le chef de l’auteur (Considérant 35 Directive 2001/29/CE).

A défaut de droit d’auteur, les intérêts moraux de l’auteur ne seraient pas protégés. En effet, l’auteur d’une œuvre n’est pas uniquement titulaire de droits économiques. Il se voit aussi conféré des droits moraux : les droits de divulgation, d’attribution et d’intégrité. (Art. XI.165, § 2 CDE)

Show less
Reply
Florent Cochez, Quentin Chaudat, Nicolas Geenen, Séverine Moreau
1. Les créations existaient déjà bien avant que les droits intellectuels soient créés. Cependant, ces droits aident à protéger la propriété des créations. Par exemple, au niveau des nouvelles technologies, elles évoluent tellement rapidement qu’il est impossible de les copier assez vite puisqu’au moment où la technologie sort, elle est déjà été conceptualisée. Il est dès lors, assez difficile pour la…
Read more

1.
Les créations existaient déjà bien avant que les droits intellectuels soient créés. Cependant, ces droits aident à protéger la propriété des créations. Par exemple, au niveau des nouvelles technologies, elles évoluent tellement rapidement qu’il est impossible de les copier assez vite puisqu’au moment où la technologie sort, elle est déjà été conceptualisée. Il est dès lors, assez difficile pour la concurrence de s’aligner.
Les données personnelles sont actuellement au devant de la scène et sont des biens intangibles.
2.
– Diminution des ressources par la consommation pour les biens communs
– Biens communs sont incorporels
Biens culturels et intellectuels
3.
Selon nous, le besoin d’incitants à la création permet de protéger la propriété du créateur. selon Tim Wu (école de droit de l’université de Virgine), les lois sur le copyright servent aussi à réguler les rapports entre les acteurs des marchés de l’information et de la création. Evidemment, le copyright protège la propriété intellectuelle de l’auteur.

Show less
Reply
Sebastien Wanderpepen - Caroline Meire - Sahra Benrabah
1. I believe, indeed, that intellectual property rights are needed in order to protect those creations. In fact, intellectual creations are often easy to steal because they can be copied. So if they are not well protected, no-one will deprive themselves of using them. For example, anything that is in a digital format, such as photos, music, movies. But also the…
Read more

1. I believe, indeed, that intellectual property rights are needed in order to protect those creations. In fact, intellectual creations are often easy to steal because they can be copied. So if they are not well protected, no-one will deprive themselves of using them.
For example, anything that is in a digital format, such as photos, music, movies. But also the design of clothing, the name of a brand, or a production process.
There is a reason why we sometimes talk about trade secrets. This is an additional way to protect yourself since these processes can be copied.

2. A first difference is that commons in land are rare goods, which are not extensible. While the commons in ideas can be shared without limits. 
From this difference follows that an excessive and selfish use of a common in land results in a degradation of this good to the detriment of all, since in the end, no one can benefit from it properly.
While a circulation of ideas, according to Philippe Aigrain, allows cooperation and diversity of actors, which does not destroy the common good but strengthens it.
I would therefore describe the commons in the area of ideas as exponential.

3. Copyright is specific. Indeed, for the author, it is more interesting to have a « proprietary » approach, which allows him to benefit from his work, than a « shared » approach. In a shared approach, his creative and original efforts would be in vain since everyone could appropriate his ideas. The purpose of copyright is to guarantee authenticity from a person’s point of view. Then, reinterpretations and parodies remain possible, but without detriment to the original work.
If copyright exclusivity were no longer guaranteed, it would also be to the detriment of the recipients of the works, since without being able to live off them, authors would become fewer or less qualitative.

Show less
Reply
Timmermans Loïc
Question 1 : I would join H. Demsetz by saying that without a property right on a creation, there would be less creations because people wouldn’t get much benefits out of it and would lose their time by creating it. Example ? If I’m doing reserach for new drugs, it costs a lot of money and if when my research…
Read more

Question 1 : I would join H. Demsetz by saying that without a property right on a creation, there would be less creations because people wouldn’t get much benefits out of it and would lose their time by creating it.

Example ? If I’m doing reserach for new drugs, it costs a lot of money and if when my research is done my product becomes a communal right, then I’ve actually lost money to produce it.

So this type of product will probably always need intellectual property rights because it involves public health and we need new medicaments.

Question 2 : I would say commons in land find their origin in something That already exists out of the nature while commons in the area of ideas are the product of a human action.
Another difference is That a common in land is something you can grab, it’s material. While a common in the area of ideas is immaterial.

I would call commons in the area of ideas « public intellectual ressources ».

Question 3 : If there was no copyright, creators wouldn’t create anymore because their original work could be used freely by anyone without authorization. So there is a financial right but more than That the copyright allows the author to determine how the work can be marketed, displayed, reproduced,…

Show less
Reply
Sarah Decamp et Anne-Sophie Van Vlasselaere
1. Nous pensons que les créations peuvent exister en dehors de toute protection intellectuelle à travers le savoir-faire, la créativité, des procédés secrets ou par une célérité des avancées technologiques ou en utilisant des procédés méconnus du public en général. Cependant, ce qui est dit ci-dessus n’est pas exhaustive et véridique pour toutes les créations. En exemple, nous voyons…
Read more

1. Nous pensons que les créations peuvent exister en dehors de toute protection intellectuelle à travers le savoir-faire, la créativité, des procédés secrets ou par une célérité des avancées technologiques ou en utilisant des procédés méconnus du public en général. Cependant, ce qui est dit ci-dessus n’est pas exhaustive et véridique pour toutes les créations.
En exemple, nous voyons Coca-Cola qui n’est plus totalement protégé mais qui garde une place importante sur le marché par une technique secrète des ingrédients.
2. Mettre en commun ses idées fait en sorte que l’idée va être sur du long terme tandis que mettre en commun les terres et les ressources en général va se faire sur un court terme.
3. Non parce que le droit d’auteur est une barrière et des protections et finalement des entraves au marché donc sont antagoniste de cette façon de pensée.
Les intérêts sont la barrière du marché, les mécanismes de protection, la protection des droits moraux et le respect de l’honneur.

Show less
Reply
Paola Bonetto, Brandon Mbuyi Kabong, Louis Bidaine
1) D’après nous, la plupart des créations dont on peut profiter aujourd’hui existent grâce aux droits intellectuels. En effet, l’absence de ces droits a pour conséquence de limiter les investissements et les innovations, ce qui a des conséquences négatives sur certaines créations qui nécessitent des moyens conséquents et requièrent un processus long. En effet, si quelqu’un voulait investir dans une…
Read more

1) D’après nous, la plupart des créations dont on peut profiter aujourd’hui existent grâce aux droits intellectuels. En effet, l’absence de ces droits a pour conséquence de limiter les investissements et les innovations, ce qui a des conséquences négatives sur certaines créations qui nécessitent des moyens conséquents et requièrent un processus long. En effet, si quelqu’un voulait investir dans une création, il devrait en assumer tous les coûts de productions alors même que le bénéfice final de la création serait partagé entre tous (C’est la théorie économique des incitants vue en bac 3). S’il est possible de ne pas poursuivre un intérêt économique (ex : les récompenses, prix Nobel peuvent également jouer un rôle comme incitant), cela reste très marginal

À titre d’exemple, les droits intellectuels ont une importance considérable dans le secteur pharmaceutique et le développement de médicaments lorsque l’État ne prend pas en charge le financement de ces médicaments.

Par ailleurs, certains droits intellectuels comme les brevets contribuent directement au développement de nouvelles créations, puisque l’obtention d’un brevet suppose une publication, ce qui va permettre d’accélérer le développement des technologies. On pourra identifier au rang des éléments immatériels qui n’auraient probablement jamais existées, les marques, designs, brevets, etc.

2) Il existe certaines différences entre les notions de « commons in land » et de « commons in idea ».

Ainsi, à la différence de la notion « commons in land », la notion de « commons in idea », l’accès libre aux idées peut avoir des conséquences positives sur le développement de nouvelles créations. En effet, on a vu que la publication des brevets, par exemple, pouvait contribuer au développement des technologies, puisque cela encourageait les créateurs à communiquer certaines de leurs idées afin de pouvoir avancer encore plus loin et développer des idées encore plus révolutionnaires.

Puis, cette théorie semble omettre le risque de ne pas suffisamment avoir accès à certaines idées qui seraient cloisonnées par des droits privés et des auteurs qui poursuivent des intérêts exclusivement économiques.

Cette notion de « commons in the area of the ideas », traduit pour moi une idée de libre accès à certaines informations, inventions, creations, etc.

3) Cette théorie pourrait être convaincante dans le domaine des droits d’auteur puisqu’en effet, on pourrait partir du principe qu’un auteur ne se lance pas dans l’écriture d’un roman car il pense au droit d’auteur, ces incitants sont donc moins nécessaires dans ce domaine. En effet, dès qu’une œuvre est créée, qu’elle a été mise en forme et qu’elle est originale, elle bénéficiera automatiquement de la protection des droits d’auteur. La question du dépôt et de l’enregistrement étant essentiellement une question de preuve.

Néanmoins, avec le temps, on a observé une protection de plus en plus accrue des droits d’auteurs, suite au développement de l’internet et des plateformes streaming, afin de continuer à inciter les auteurs à la création.

***
Brandon Mbuyi Kabong, Louis Bidaine, Paola Bonetto,

Show less
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use simple HTML tags to add links or lists to your comment:
<a href="url">link</a> <ul><li>list item 1</li><li>list item2</li></ul> <em>italic</em> <strong>bold</strong>