<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Review: Boldrin and Levine, “The case against
intellectual property” - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/boldrin-levine.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Review: Boldrin and Levine, “The case against intellectual property”</h2>

by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>

<a href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/issue2003_2.html">http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/issue2003_2.html</a> href="http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/intellectual.pdf">
contains a paper by Boldrin and Levine entitled “The case against
intellectual property”.  It argues on economic grounds that authors can
make money by selling their work even in a world where everyone can copy.</p>

You've probably heard the superficial argument that “If the
program is free, you will only sell one copy”.  The obvious
response is that today there are companies that sell thousands of
copies a month.  But this paper provides another response: it shows
why people who are fully aware of the economic consequences of the
freedom to copy would pay a high price for “the first

<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty">The
term “intellectual property” is biased and spreads
confusion.</a> The bias is easy to see—by calling copyright and
patents and trademarks “property”, it leads people to
think that criticizing them is “opposing property rights”.
The confusion is less evident: by lumping copyright and patents and
trademarks together, it leads people to treat them as one thing, to
ignore their large differences and consider them as a single issue in
terms of their meager similarities.</p>

This usually means ignoring social and ethical aspects of copyrights, and
the different social and ethical aspects of patents, and considering both
copyrights and patents as a single issue in narrow economic terms.  The
proponents of harshly restrictive copyrights and patents then present an
economic argument that is so simple that it gives an appearance of being

I normally respond by showing the aspects of the situation that have been
ignored by treating the issue as a purely economic one.  Boldrin and
Levine's paper takes on that simple economic argument on its own terms, and
shows the gaps in it, gaps that the apparent simplicity tends to hide.</p>

I believe we should continue to reject the term “intellectual
property”.  We need to call attention to the non-economic
aspects of copyrights and the different non-economic aspects of
patents.  However, Boldrin and Levine's arguments will be useful for
responding to people who insist on narrowing their values to

The paper is addressed to economists and somewhat mathematical.
Popularization of its ideas would be useful.</p>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">

        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
of this article.</p>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright © 2003, 2014 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2015/07/07 05:58:00 $
<!-- timestamp end -->