|Abstract||According to Kant, property applies only to touchable things, among which he includes the works of art. For the very principle of private property, a legitimate purchaser has the right to replicate and to share them without restrictions. Kant recognizes copyright only on written texts, by conceiving them as speeches that exclusively authorized spokespersons - the publishers - may convey to the public in the name of their authors. The rights of the authorized publishers, however, are justified only if they help the public to get the texts. In a Kantian environment, open source software would be worth of copyright protection, because it can be conceived as a speech meant to human beings. On the contrary, Kant would treat closed source programs as works of art, without according them copyright protection, because, as none is allowed to read and to understand them, they cannot be conceived as a speeches meant to the public. Closed source programs are like sealed books that no one is allowed to read: why do we keep on taking for granted that they are worth of copyright protection?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
David M. Douglas (2011). The Social Disutility of Software Ownership. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):485-502.
Hugh Breakey (2009). Liberalism and Intellectual Property Rights. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (3):329-349.
Matthew K. McGowan, Paul Stephens & Dexter Gruber (2007). An Exploration of the Ideologies of Software Intellectual Property: The Impact on Ethical Decision Making. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 73 (4):409 - 424.
Greg R. Vetter, Claiming Copyleft in Open Source Software: What If the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL) Had Been Patented?
Deven R. Desai, Copyright's Hidden Assumption: A Critical Analysis of the Foundations of Descendible Copyright.
Richard De George (2006). Information Technology, Globalization and Ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 8 (1):29-40.
Michal Shur-Ofry, The (Copyright) Law of Genre: A Network Perspective on Copyright Protection of Cultural Genres.
Anne Barron (2012). Kant, Copyright and Communicative Freedom. Law and Philosophy 31 (1):1-48.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #188,662 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?