从Quora摘录：
It is outdated. It may have been a misconceived notion in the first place.
The question of what constitutes "property" is one of the oldest, and most important questions of humankind. Humans were considered "property" for most of history, and women were (and still are in some societies) considered property. Obviously this is, and has always been, despicable.
Intellectual property has has existed, in some form and some society, for less than a 1000 years, which is less than 1% of human existence.
The constitutional approach stems from Thomas Jefferson, for whom ideas or inventions were not property, but if giving inventors exclusive rights for a limited period of time benefited society, it may be done at the discretion of that society.
Thomas Jefferson on Patents and Freedom of Ideas
Fast-forward to the year 2013, and this question is more relevant than ever. The costs of protecting inventions and creative expression as "property" are obvious, while the benefits are only speculative.
*What are the costs? *
Billions, if not trillions, of dollars spent each year through civil and criminal litigation. Time and money that would otherwise be spent creating things rather than destroying them.
Restriction of access to research and learning material (much of it publicly funded, in the so-called public interest). Who knows how much this costs?
Why are the benefits speculative? Two things have never been proven:
1. Creators create primarily for financial motive
2. The "natural" ways of protecting ideas/information/content are insufficient
Throughout history, people have made things, for nothing except the joy of seeing them made and they've discovered things for the joys of finding things out. Painters will still paint.. hackers will still hack, physicists will still do physics with no reward other than personal satisfaction. To be sure, that isn't the whole story.
It could be argued that ip protection engenders the building of industries and institutions around creative work. This could lead to more jobs and a better economy and promote the progress of society at large.. but that alone doesn't justify ip protection from a constitutional perspective. It has to justify the progress of Science and the "Useful Arts" specifically. IP supporters have to demonstrate both that the progress of society is promoted by IP, in turn promotes science, technology and art and that neither of these could occur without IP.
In summary, the burden of proof for IP should (have always) been on those who are asking to limit access to information and ideas. After all, IP protection goes against freedom of speech and freedom of thought, slows the spread of ideas and therefore the progress of society and is not "natural" property in any sense.
Media companies and the government can't claim "theft of property".. They must claim that the content wouldn't have been created without the laws that protect it.
以下为谷歌翻译：
它已经过时了。这可能是一个误解的概念。
什么构成“财产”的问题是人类最古老，最重要的问题之一。在历史的大部分时间里，人类被认为是“财产”，而女性（并且仍然在某些社会中）被视为财产。显然，这一直是，而且一直是卑鄙的。
知识产权在某种形式和某种社会中已存在不到1000年，不到人类存在的1％。
宪法方法源于托马斯·杰斐逊，他的想法或发明不属于财产，但如果给予发明者在一段有限时间内的专有权利有益于社会，则可以由该社会自行决定。
托马斯杰斐逊关于专利和思想自由
快进到2013年，这个问题比以往任何时候都更加重要。保护发明和创造性表达作为“财产”的成本是显而易见的，而好处只是推测性的。
费用是多少？
每年通过民事和刑事诉讼花费数十亿甚至数万亿美元。时间和金钱，否则将用于创造事物而不是摧毁它们。
限制获取研究和学习材料（其中大部分是公共资助的，所谓的公共利益）。谁知道这需要多少钱？
为什么这些好处是投机性的？有两件事从未被证实：
1.创作者的创作主要是出于金融动机
2.保护想法/信息/内容的“自然”方式是不够的
纵观历史，人们已经做了一件事，除了看到它们的喜悦之外什么也没做，他们发现了寻找事物的乐趣。画家仍然会画画..黑客仍然会破解，除了个人满足之外，物理学家仍会做物理学而没有奖励。可以肯定的是，这不是全部。
可以说，IP保护促进了围绕创造性工作建立行业和机构。这可能会带来更多的就业机会和更好的经济，并促进整个社会的进步......但仅凭这一点并不能证明从宪法角度来看保护知识产权是正当的。它必须具体证明科学和“实用艺术”的进步。知识产权支持者必须证明，知识产权促进了社会的进步，反过来促进了科学，技术和艺术的发展，而且没有知识产权，这些都不可能发生。
总之，知识产权的举证责任应该（一直）是那些要求限制获取信息和想法的人。毕竟，知识产权保护违背了言论自由和思想自由，减缓了思想的传播，从而减缓了社会的进步，在任何意义上都不是“自然”的财产。
媒体公司和政府不能声称“盗窃财产”。他们必须声称，如果没有保护财产的法律，就不会创建内容。
In my opinion IP is not just outdated, but it should have never been invented. Knowledge should be no one's exclusive property. We learnt everything from someone, maybe by ourselves looking at the universe. Ideas have no owners; unlike material goods, when you share an idea you don't lose the idea, you still keep your copy. I am a writer, a teacher and a physics researcher and I share ideas and knowledge for free. For free I mean that I don't charge for my ideas or knowledge, I just want to get a fair salary for my efforts and hours of work, same as a carpenter who won't charge you every time you use the table he built for you or a mechanic who won't charge for every time someone turns on the car she repaired. I don't think anyone can own ideas, because all ideas are made of other and other's ideas, for example, every book, even if incredibly original, is inspired by other books, movies, old stories or conversations and experiences with other people. Furthermore, ideas get more powerful the more people shares or agree on them. So how could I claim property over something created by interacting with others and that gains its value thanks to others?
中文(简体)
在我看来，IP不仅仅是过时的，而且它应该从未被发明过。知识应该是没有人的专属财产。我们从某人那里学到了一切，也许是我们自己看着宇宙。想法没有所有者;与物质商品不同，当你分享一个想法时，你不会失去想法，你仍然保留你的副本。我是一名作家，一名教师和一名物理研究员，我免费分享想法和知识。免费我的意思是我不收取我的想法或知识，我只想为我的努力和工作时间获得合理的薪水，就像每次使用他建造的桌子时都不会向你收费的木匠对于您或机械师，每当有人打开她修理过的汽车时，他们都不会收费。我不认为任何人都可以拥有自己的想法，因为所有的想法都是由其他人和其他人的想法构成的，例如，每本书，即使是非常原创的，也会受到其他书籍，电影，旧故事或与其他人的对话和经历的启发。此外，越多人分享或同意这些想法就越强大。那么，我如何能够通过与他人互动创造的东西来宣称财产，并且由于其他人而获得其价值呢？
网友评论