Intellectual property ignores fundamental notions of liberalism and free market capitalism while perpetuating long-existing systems of cap

Zukerfield 17 National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Science, Technology & Society Center, Maimonides University, Buenos Aires, Argentina (Mariano, “The tale of the snake and the elephant: Intellectual property expansion under informational capitalism”, The Information Society, 33:5, 243-260, 6-17-17, DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2017.1354107, DOA: 6/29/24)//LFS - LMH

Liberalism was opposed to both monopolies and property rights for intellectual works. Monopolies were seen as obstacles to free markets, as the remnants of monarchical arbitrariness. Nevertheless, private monopolies on knowledge for a limited period were accepted— often reluctantly—for the enrichment of the public domain in the long run. But labeling copyright and patents as “property” was rejected. This rejection was grounded in a particular belief: that the essence of ideas was quite different from the essence of physical goods.14 Further, the opposition to property rights for intellectual works can be found in another kind of liberal argument, which has persisted to the present day: Intellectual property inhibits the full exercise of physical private property. For instance, if a person buys a book, this owner would not be able to exert certain rights on the goods she bought because of the copyright: She is not allowed to copy, translate, or base a movie on it. Thus, certain rights are retained by the seller herself, which turns the property into an incomplete property for the buyer.15 Summing up, at least five arguments show that copyright and patents have long been opposed to the liberal notion of property: (i) They were monopolies; (ii) their duration was limited; (iii) the rights were granted only to enlarge the public sphere of knowledge; (iv) entities subject to them (the ideas) had a different nature from those goods subject to property; and (v) arguably, exercising them precluded the full realization of private property. If this is so, why have copyright, patents, and other related rights become property nowadays? In the transition from industrial to informational capitalism, a deep institutional change took place. The privileged position that once was occupied solely by physical property is now shared and even contested by a set of monopoly rights on knowledge. Labeling monopoly rights on knowledge as “property” gives these rights prestige and legitimacy. Moreover, this move makes the trappings of monopoly less salient.