Protecting Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet

Issue Summary

The issue of protecting copy written material on the Internet has been an issue of great debate lately as the technology to copy and distribute copy written material becomes more prevalent and easy to use. On the pro side there is the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, they contend that copyright laws need to be strengthened because computer networks make it fast and easy to copy and distribute copyrighted material. They maintain that if intellectual property rights are not updated many content providers will find it economically unfeasible to publish information online. James Boyle offers the opposite view for the con side, insisting that proposed copyright laws meant to protect intellectual property on the Internet will unfairly limit the legitimate use of information by Internet users. He contends that overly restrictive intellectual property laws will prevent people from distributing information, which would stifle intellectual innovations.

Facts

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights explains that the advances in technology affect the effectiveness of copyright laws by creating new methods of reproduction and distribution of copy written material. They state that digitization and high-speed networks have had an enormous impact on the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material.

James Boyle bases his position on court rulings that apply to copy written material. He cites that the right to use copyrighted material is so vital to free speech and future creativity that the Supreme Court established an implicit presumption that noncommercial private copying is fair use. He also refers to Congress' legislative report that the temporary display of images on a screen is not copyright infringement.

Opinions

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights believes that protecting the copyrights of material will stimulate creativity and ultimately lead to the availability of the materials the public desires. They believe if the material is not protected, the marketplace will not support its creation and distribution, and that the public will not benefit or have unrestricted use of the ideas and information. They also believe that for the Internet to achieve it's full potential, the protection of copyrighted material must be ensured.

James Boyle believes that money and power are influencing legislation to protect copyrighted material on the Internet. He also believes that the Internet is flourishing both economically and culturally and does not need to be saved by Congress and their copyright protection.

Problems

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights' thesis has several problems that hinder critical thinking. They only offer the advances in technology as the reason for needing intellectual property rights on the Internet. They do not mention ethics or honesty as part of the problem. They also show a biased consideration of evidence in that they explain the benefits of technology only in relation to violating copyrighted material. Automatic rejection of an opposing view is also found in their thesis. One group seeks to justify reduced protection and to legitimize unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works, but is immediately rejected as invalid.

James Boyle's thesis has several problems that hinder critical thinking. His thesis is based on the white paper about intellectual property produced by the Clinton administration in 1995. James holds the either/or outlook in that he disparages all the points of the paper that he mentions. There is no middle ground. He also uses biased consideration of evidence because he never mentions any positive points from the paper or if it even has any. His explanations of the changes proposed by the white paper are oversimplified. He outlines what he believes will be the effects of the changes without explaining the changes themselves. He also makes an irrational appeal to emotion by saying the supporters of the paper are doing harm by supporting it.

Propaganda

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights does not utilize propaganda to express its views. They are not advocating a particular doctrine or cause.

James Boyle refers to the loss of privacy and anonymity as "a kind of privatized Big Brother". He paints a bleak picture regarding the outcome of placing further restrictions on intellectual property rights on the Internet. He also implies there is a conspiracy between the authors and supporters of the white paper and the companies that would benefit from further restrictions.

Logical Fallacies

Errors of perspective

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights makes an unwarranted assumption in their thesis by saying "... unless the framework for legitimate commerce is preserved and adequate protection for copyrighted works is ensured, the vast communications network will not reach its full potential as a true, global marketplace.' This is an assumption because it has not been proven that intellectual property rights have hindered the growth of the Internet.

James Boyle makes several errors of perspective in his thesis. His thesis has an overall either/or outlook because he only points out the flaws contained in the white paper about intellectual property on the Internet. He does not present anything positive from the paper. He is expecting the reader to reject the paper in its entirety. He also encourages mindless conformity by asking the reader many questions and immediately answering them himself. He does not give the reader a chance to think about the questions he is asking and why they are important.

Errors of procedure

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights shows a biased consideration of evidence by only showing how the advancements in the Internet are used for unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted material. They never mention the advancements in the Internet that prohibit the unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted material.

James Boyle is also shows a biased consideration of evidence by only showing the flaws in the white paper. He only provides information that supports his claims. He also oversimplifies the changes proposed by the white paper. He only concentrates on what he believes will be the effects of the changes and does not give the reader a chance to develop their own conclusion.

Errors of reaction

Both