journal = {ARSP: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy},
year = {2004},
volume = {90},
number = {1},
pages = {20-50},
issn = {00012343},
abstract = {The article deals with the concept of intellectual property and its basis in different philosophical theories. First, the author gives a short historical overview of the development of intellectual property, locating its roots already in pre-historical society. It is followed by an examination of today's features of intellectual property, in contrast to 'regular' property. In the second part, the article analyses the theories of Locke, Kant, Hegel, Servan and Foucault to explain intellectual property, followed by a discussion which of their theories' features are reflected by today's intellectual property law.},
file = {:recursos/Intellectual Property in Philosophy.pdf:PDF},
publisher = {Franz Steiner Verlag},
url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/23681627},
}
@Book{drahos1996a,
title = {A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Applied Legal Philosophy)},
publisher = {Dartmouth Pub Co},
year = {1996},
author = {Peter Drahos},
isbn = {1855212404,9781855212404},
file = {:recursos/Peter Drahos-A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Applied Legal Philosophy)-Dartmouth Pub Co (1996).pdf:PDF},
title = {Ethics and Law of Intellectual Property},
publisher = {Ashgate},
year = {2007},
author = {Lenk, Christian, Hoppe, Nils and Andorno, Roberto},
series = {Applied Legal Philosophy},
isbn = {0754626989,9780754626985,9780754685012},
file = {:recursos/(Applied Legal Philosophy) Christian Lenk, Nils Hoppe and Roberto Andorno, Christian Lenk, Nils Hoppe, roberto Andorno-Ethics and Law of Intellectual Property -Ashgate (2007).pdf:PDF},
title = {New Frontiers in the Philosophy of Intellectual Property},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {2012},
author = {Lever, Annabelle},
series = {Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law},
isbn = {9781139525879,1139525875,9780511920837,0511920830,1283521946,9781283521949},
file = {:recursos/(Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law) Annabelle Lever (ed.)-New Frontiers in the Philosophy of Intellectual Property-Cambridge University Press (2012).pdf:PDF},
title = {The Moral Foundations of Intangible Property},
journal = {The Monist},
year = {1990},
volume = {73},
number = {4},
pages = {578-600},
issn = {00269662},
file = {:recursos/The moral foundations of intangible property.pdf:PDF},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
timestamp = {2017-02-19},
url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/27903211},
}
@Article{breakey2010a,
author = {Breakey, Hugh},
title = {Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain},
journal = {The Modern Law Review},
year = {2010},
volume = {73},
number = {2},
pages = {208-239},
issn = {00267961, 14682230},
abstract = {No natural rights theory justifies strong intellectual property rights. More specifically, no theory within the entire domain of natural rights thinking — encompassing classical liberalism, libertarianism and left-libertarianism, in all their innumerable variants — coherently supports strengthening current intellectual property rights. Despite their many important différences, all these natural rights theories endorse some set of members of a common family of basic ethical precepts. These commitments include non-interference, fairness, non-worsening, consistency, universalisability, prior consent, self-ownership, self-governance, and the establishment of zones of autonomy. Such commitments have clear applications pertaining to the use and ownership of created ideas. I argue that each of these commitments require intellectual property rights to be substantially limited in scope, strength and duration. In this way the core mechanisms of natural rights thinking ensure a robust public domain and categorically rule out strong intellectual property rights.},
file = {:recursos/Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain.pdf:PDF},
publisher = {[Modern Law Review, Wiley]},
timestamp = {2017-02-19},
url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/40660697},
}
@Article{barron2012a,
author = {Barron, Anne},
title = {Kant, Copyright and Communicative Freedom},
journal = {Law and Philosophy},
year = {2012},
volume = {31},
number = {1},
pages = {1--48},
issn = {1573-0522},
abstract = {The rapid recent expansion of copyright law worldwide has sparked efforts to defend the `public domain' of non-propertized information, often on the ground that an expansive public domain is a condition of a `free culture'. Yet questions remain about why the public domain is worth defending, what exactly a free culture is, and what role (if any) authors' rights might play in relation to it. From the standard liberal perspective shared by many critics of copyright expansionism, the protection of individual expression by means of marketable property rights in authors' works serves as an engine of progress towards a fully competitive `marketplace of ideas' -- though only if balanced by an extensive public domain from which users may draw in the exercise of their own expressivity. This article shows that a significantly different, and arguably richer, conception of what a free culture is and how authors' rights underpin it emerges from a direct engagement with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. For Kant, progress towards a fully emancipated (i.e. a `mature' or `enlightened') culture can only be achieved through the critical intellectual activity that public communication demands: individual expressive freedom is only a condition, not constitutive, of this `freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters'. The main thesis defended in this article is that when Kant's writings on publicity (critical public debate) are read in relation to his writings on the legal organization of publishing, a necessary connection emerges between authors' rights -- as distinct from copyrights -- and what J{\"u}rgen Habermas and others have named the public sphere. I conclude that it is the public sphere, and not the public domain as such, that should serve as the key reference point in any evaluation of copyright law's role in relation to the possibility of a free culture.},
doi = {10.1007/s10982-011-9114-1},
file = {:recursos/Kant, Copyright and Communicative Freedom.pdf:PDF},