Social Information Protection

Social Information Protection

Introduction

For Locke, inventions must fulfill a usefulness standard, however, the level of utility it grants is very low and would be given by the particular value given by its author. Rather, for this author, the utility is given by the real value that is given by society once the work is published because it affirms that it would be a waste of the work if it is not put at the service of society.

Developing

John Batiste Say defined utility as the faculty that things possess man in any way. In this regard, it can be said that information is useful when it contributes to the cultural and technological development of society. For the economy, the goods that are useful are primarily an importance of use and, therefore, a exchange value with the consequent satisfaction of needs.

If we refer to Ecuadorian legislation, which adopts the principles of this subject of other legal systems in force worldwide, it is necessary for the registration of a work, it is not taken into account, it is not a parameter the qualitative parameter, in other words notIt is important if the work in question is of quality, it does not matter if the work or product is lousy or has characteristics to be considered as innovative, it is enough that the materialized idea has not been registered for more than one occasion.

This idea is related to Locke’s about natural law, since things had value for the simple fact of having been produced by man, however, concludes that the result of mental work cannot be protected.

If an idea is born in someone’s mind, it must be expressed, and that involves some kind of work.

While Locke defended in a way the common property of information, Immanuel Kant defends the private property of intellectual property rights that would be detriment when a person appropriates the creation of another without the owner’s consent, would be importing the possession of the possession ofthis about good.

Kant in this aspect does not refer to good as such a product of human creation but to the idea that is printed on the object that contains it. This philosopher proposes the example of the possession of the books, the work that is a company in the book is the exclusive property of its author while the object is property in this case of the reader.

Kant with this example only refers to literary works because the important thing to be protected by copyright is discourse because it is a personal right. But what about artistic works are not a direct representation of thoughts? It is a little disagreed with Kant’s theory, since in a painting or sculpture what is also protected is the idea that gave rise to the work of art, since the features, although they are made by the same painter, noThey are exactly the same, so it could be said that each painting is a different work, a different and immediate idea.

The ideas embodied in the works of art also convey thoughts and expressions that depend on the ability to perceive the viewer, that is why creativity is not a parameter to record a work. While it is true, most artists take elements of nature as inspiration to make their paintings or sculptures, it is the form, color and disposition of such objects that make the work unique and protected by intellectual property rights. In short, only ideas embodied in texts are important for Kant.

Conclusions

However, as opposed to Kant regarding the author’s position as one person, they are served that proposes the multiplicity of authors in the participation of the creative process explaining that they have rights about the idea embodied in the role both the person who thought itas the person who will receive the message.

Hegel, on the other hand, believes that copyright can have two positions, the first oriented to an economic aspect and the second oriented to qualitatively value the author’s creative idea, it is thus, that the author explains that every invention of the mindhuman deserves to be recognized and protected by intellectual property rights. Hegel explains that an author’s right on his work is limited and after that time he becomes part of the public domain.

Hegel does not make a direct approach to the figure of plagiar. Hegel recognizes the creation value made by the author, so he explains how a work can be sold without continuously selling the idea of that work.