I
hope you watched at least a few minutes of Wendy Davis and her epic
filibuster. I appreciate the rhetorical force of the exercise more than
anything else. At the end of the day, the strength of the filibuster is
not really in what is said but that a person feels so strongly about an
issue, sees it as so important, that she will literally not stand down
in defense. I think having that exercise is important in a democracy
where consensus must emerge from public discussion and rational
persuasion. We all know that rhetoric is not entirely rational, but the
emotional component is an important flag for reason. The investment of
the speaker demonstrates a conviction that counts in favor of revisiting
one’s own position on an issue, makes you look closer at why someone
would feel so strongly. These are important considerations in shaping a
community because we need to recognize the concerns of our fellows as
just as important to them as ours are to us. Wendy Davis demonstrated
that conviction today, and well done.
There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial. There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, th
Comments
Post a Comment