Dr. nicmus

Strategies for Answering Discussion and Essay Questions

Chapter 8

VIII: Strategies for selected Discussion and Essay Questions in Chapter 8 (See pages

261-262 in the textbook)

A. Strategies for Selected Discussion Questions in Chapter 8

2. The “common good” approach used by McFarland (and others) to analyze ethical issues

has its roots in natural law theory. Natural law, which traces it origins to the writings of

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, operates on the assumption that every object has a natural

purpose or end. Using McFarland‟s insight, we see that the purpose or natural goal of

information (as an „object” of some kind) is something to be shared and communicated. The

view that information should be fee is not necessarily incompatible with natural law theory;

however, that theory need not require that information be totally free. Nonetheless, natural

law provides us with a certain presumptive principle about how we should proceed in the

debate over intellectual property – viz., that information should be shared and communicated.

So using this presumptive principle, we could argue against framing overly oppressive and

restrictive intellectual property laws that “commodify” information and that militate against

the sharing and communicating of information.

3. The “intellectual commons” is analogous to the physical commons in that it provides

people with a common area in which they can congregate and freely use the resources

available. (In the case of the intellectual commons, the resources are ideas and information

that can be freely shared.) As stronger intellectual property laws are passed, the intellectual

commons tends to shrink. Many, including Lawrence Lessig, believe that the intellectual

commons is shrinking. Consider once again the case of Eric Eldred‟s Web site, which we

examined in Sec. 8.4.3. We saw that with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term

Extension Act in 1998, some books that were about to enter the public domain will instead

remain copyrighted.

James Boyle‟s suggestion that we think of the intellectual commons along the lines of the

environmental movement of the 1970s could help us to reframe the current debate. For

example, thinking of it in this way can help us to see that the short-sightedness of arguments

used in favor individual rights for ownership of land could easily have destroyed the

environment. When applied to the intellectual commons, the environmental analogy can also

be used to muster support among the various “stakeholders” to help preserve the intellectual

commons from further degradation.

B. Strategies for Selected Essays Questions in Chapter 8

1. If we proceed from a principle like “information wants to be shared” (but not necessarily

free), then we can frame intellectual property laws and policies that help to keep information

accessible to individuals while, at the same time rewarding the producers of proprietary

information, including computer software. Such a presumptive principle could also help to

reverse the trend of commercializing information, which has greatly reduced its ability to be

shared.

3. There would certainly appear to be an inconsistency in that both groups flip-flop their

positions when it comes to privacy vs. property claims. Each side seems to want to have it

both ways. We can find similar inconsistencies between liberals and conservatives with

respect to life issues. For example, conservatives who are pro-life in the abortion debate are

often pro-death penalty in the debate over capital punishment (despite the fact that

conservatives claim to believe in the “sanctity of life,” which implies that all human life is

sacred). Conversely, liberals tend to be pro-choice in the abortion debate, but are anti-death

penalty in the capital punishment debate (presumably because they believe that taking any

human life is morally wrong). So perhaps it is not surprising that with respect to the personal

privacy and intellectual property debates, liberal and conservatives are also inconsistent in

their respective views.