TY  - GEN
N2  - This book argues that certain intellectual creations should not receive copyright or patent protection because they are harmful to society. It posits that the theories of intellectual property and the Intellectual Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggest this conclusion. The book responds to counterarguments: namely, that denying protection might increase the output of objectionable works; that other laws should address the moral problems; and that intellectual property functions better under a laissez-faire approach. After responding to these arguments, the book considers the roles of government actors in denying protection. It argues that courts should exercise their powers of equity to deny relief for works that are connected to unlawful acts of the rights-holder, and that courts should exercise their constitutional powers to deny protection for specific categories of harmful expressions and inventions. Next, the book considers whether Congress has constitutional authority to deny protection for works that it considers to be immoral. In concluding that Congress does have such authority, the book sets forth specific criteria that Congress should apply in exercising its moral discretion. Finally, the book considers whether denying intellectual property protection on moral grounds would violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It concludes that principles of free speech afford Congress considerable discretion to deny patent protection but only narrow discretion to deny copyright protection. It also concludes that the Free Speech Clause is consistent with judicial denial of protection for the limited categories of works that fall outside the Intellectual Property Clause.
AB  - This book argues that certain intellectual creations should not receive copyright or patent protection because they are harmful to society. It posits that the theories of intellectual property and the Intellectual Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggest this conclusion. The book responds to counterarguments: namely, that denying protection might increase the output of objectionable works; that other laws should address the moral problems; and that intellectual property functions better under a laissez-faire approach. After responding to these arguments, the book considers the roles of government actors in denying protection. It argues that courts should exercise their powers of equity to deny relief for works that are connected to unlawful acts of the rights-holder, and that courts should exercise their constitutional powers to deny protection for specific categories of harmful expressions and inventions. Next, the book considers whether Congress has constitutional authority to deny protection for works that it considers to be immoral. In concluding that Congress does have such authority, the book sets forth specific criteria that Congress should apply in exercising its moral discretion. Finally, the book considers whether denying intellectual property protection on moral grounds would violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It concludes that principles of free speech afford Congress considerable discretion to deny patent protection but only narrow discretion to deny copyright protection. It also concludes that the Free Speech Clause is consistent with judicial denial of protection for the limited categories of works that fall outside the Intellectual Property Clause.
T1  - Intellectual Property and Immorality :Against Protecting Harmful Creations of the Mind.
AU  - Snow, Ned,
CN  - KF2979
LA  - eng
ID  - 48121
KW  - Freedom of expression.
KW  - Intellectual property
KW  - Intellectual property
KW  - Freedom of expression
KW  - Intellectual property
KW  - Copyright
KW  - Patents
SN  - 9780197614433
TI  - Intellectual Property and Immorality :Against Protecting Harmful Creations of the Mind.
LK  - https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197614402.001.0001
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197614402.001.0001
ER  -