K’s of IP invert the problem. Property should be expanded not abandoned to account for cultural protections.
Turkewitz 21, Arts advocate. Warning about libertarian definitions of freedom that fail to consider asymmetrical power since 1996 (Neil, “Blurry Lines: The Complex Intersection of Race & Intellectual Property,” Medium, https://medium.com/the-shadow/blurry-lines-the-complex-intersection-of-race-intellectual-property-fe88e64d4058)//BB
This underscores that, as Professor Vats has observed, intellectual property standards are built on racial scripts, and that such gaps can — and frequently do — operate to deny ownership on the basis of race, or at least in a manner largely aligned with race. But the point I want to stress is that whether in the halls of WIPO, national capitals around the world seeking to address protection of folklore/traditional cultural expression, or as reflected in the Blurred Lines case, the relevant “racial script” that operates to the disadvantage of people of color relates to limitations on the scope of protection, and not to an excess thereof. This is not to suggest that issues of access and use do not pose special challenges for communities of color — only to highlight that an accurate narrative concerning race and intellectual property is complex, and involves, in large part, the failure to provide adequate protection to cultural productions.