Ghafele (2010)

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Revision as of 15:44, 3 September 2023 by Weiwei YI (PGR) (talk | contribs) (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Ghafele (2010)
Title: Of War and Peace Analyzing the Policy Discourse on Intellectual Property
Author(s): Ghafele, R.
Year: 2010
Citation: Ghafele, R. (2010). Of war and peace: Analyzing the policy discourse on intellectual property. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3, 237-255.
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: “To understand what these overarching paradigms of the global IP discourse were, a wide text corpus was created by reviewing relevant databases (such as Lexis Nexis, Wall Street Journal etc.), online databases of academic journals (such as Sage Journals Online, Science Direct etc) as well as websites of a set of institutions involved with IP (such as WHO, WIPO, Doctors without borders etc.), NGOs, policy makers and national patent offices.”

“Additional texts were identified through random keyword searches, such as “patents & compulsory licensing” or “technology transfer”

Data Type: Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • Not specified
Funder(s):

Abstract

“This study analyzes underlying themes of the international policy discourse on Intellectual Property (IP) and in this sense raises awareness on common pitfalls currently associated with international policy making in the area of innovation. Methodologically it is situated within the domain of discourse analysis, which considers policy making as strongly embedded by a specific representative order that paves the way for framing policies in one specific way, while systematically silencing alternative positions. The baseline of the analysis forms a literature review of approximately five hundred texts that were identified through random keyword searches, including academic journal articles, newspaper articles, statements from international organizations and national administrations as well as statements on ‘YouTube. We found that the current policy discourse on IP is driven by two different camps. On one side are those who associate IP with the negative side effects of Globalization and see IP as a mechanism to erode important social and cultural values. On the other side, those wanting to advance the IP agenda hardly address how IP may promote equitable innovation, but instead repeatedly refer to counterfeiting and piracy as a major threat to industry. Overall the discourse derives much vocabulary from the domain of war, fights and battlefields. We did not find any solution-driven approaches seeking to explore how IP may be used as a means to advance the knowledge economy worldwide or bridge current divides prevailing in international systems of innovation.”

Main Results of the Study

• The theme "The Forgotten IP Dimension" is found, which explores how the international discourse on globalization predominantly associates "intellectual property" with "patents," overshadowing other forms like trademarks, design rights, copyrights, etc. This focus on patents hinders the examination of other proprietary knowledge, and the potential benefits of collective trademarks for rural development in emerging economies are overlooked. Additionally, IP is often linked to science and technology, neglecting the role of design and brand innovation in current globalization dynamics. • The theme of “Most people don’t really know what IP is” is found. The author finds that a significant portion of the general population lacks awareness and understanding of intellectual property (IP). Surveys indicated that people struggle to define IP, often associating it with negative connotations or remaining unaware of its significance. Even among small and medium enterprises (SMEs), a majority were unable to answer basic IP-related questions. Consumers tend to underestimate the severity of counterfeiting and piracy, not equating them with theft or crime. This lack of awareness undermines the true potential and importance of IP, with only a minority recognizing its value. • The finding theme “IP acts as a gatekeeper” suggests that intellectual property (IP) functions as a gatekeeper, creating a strict division between "insiders" (primarily developed countries) and "outsiders" (typically developing countries) in the context of globalization. Developing nations are often expected to pursue innovation through technology transfer in exchange for stronger IP enforcement. The literature largely focuses on IP in relation to foreign direct investment and an open market, overlooking its potential to foster indigenous innovation in developing countries, implying a patronizing assumption about their knowledge capacities. • The “IP, yet another threat to humanity” theme shows that intellectual property (IP) is perceived as a threat to humanity within the context of globalization. It is associated with various global issues such as job downsizing, exploitation of the poor, privatization of healthcare, and gender discrimination. The discourse portrays IP as benefiting large corporations and hindering the development of developing countries, preventing them from utilizing IP for their own innovation agendas. Additionally, IP is criticized for its conflicts with international human rights law and is linked to global shortcomings like commercial exploitation and environmental concerns. Various perspectives, including those of religious groups and gender studies, view IP as a system that perpetuates inequalities and undermines social values. • The theme “The Intellectual Property Genocide” highlights the aggressive and war-like discourse surrounding Intellectual Property (IP) and its connection to globalization. The current discourse views IP as a tool used by wealthy countries and corporations to exert power over developing nations. The IP system is criticized for its unfairness, hindering access to knowledge, and preventing public health advancements. The debate portrays patent owners as profit-driven entities, creating a severe gap between IP and human welfare, particularly in the context of public health. The ethical dimension of IP is questioned, with concerns about its impact on access to essential medicines. The debate around patents in biotechnology is also passionate and aggressive. • The finding theme “Fight the Pirates” revolves around the discourse on intellectual property (IP) and counterfeiting/piracy. The discussion is primarily led by business associations, patent offices, and academics closely aligned with business interests, contrasting the social and ethical impact of IP, which is driven by NGOs, human rights activists, and other groups. Both discourses borrow from the language of war and battles. Counterfeiting and piracy are portrayed as serious threats to the economy, necessitating aggressive enforcement and protection of IP rights. Estimates of the economic impact vary widely, but some research suggests that counterfeiting may not always have negative effects on firms and could even benefit them by stimulating networks and signalling effects.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

{{{Dataset}}}