Even The Pope Is Worried About The State Of Intellectual Property
from the didn't-see-that-coming dept
The US Constitution clearly states that the sole purpose of intellectual property monopolies is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." For quite some time, we've felt that current intellectual property law does not live up to that challenge... and it appears that, of all people, the Pope may agree. Pope Benedict XVI is certainly not subject to the US Constitution, but Roberto Valenzuela alerts us to the Pope's "Caritas in veritate" (Charity in Truth) that just came out today. In it, the Pope discusses what is progress and the importance of economic development, which makes for quite an interesting read, whether you are religious or not. The Pope talks about how economic development, prosperity and economic growth has helped lift many out of poverty and built up nations and created tremendous opportunities for people. However, he is worried about "malfunctions and dramatic problems" in the system. Such as? Well, intellectual property for one thing:On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health careWhile there's plenty that I don't necessarily agree with, a lot of the talk certainly does appear to be pretty economically literate, suggesting that an overabundant focus on short term profits can do significant harm to long-term economic growth. He talks up the importance of increasing knowledge and research and better sharing the results of that research.
The impact of technology is a constant theme throughout the entire thing, with an entire section focused on technology towards the end, where he does worry that our fascination with technology its own sake often obscures the its overall impact. He talks about the responsible use of technology, but (and perhaps I'm reading too much into it) he doesn't appear to be condemning technological progress, but noting that for its gains to be sustainable, people do need to think about the wider impact. However, I certainly disagree with his assessment that technology for things like social communications can have a direct moral implication, as opposed to being "neutral."
It's a worthwhile (if long) read, no matter where you stand on these issues -- but the very fact that even the Pope is concerned about the excesses of intellectual property being used to harm economic and social development again suggests that this is a problem that is having a pretty wide impact.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: economic development, healthcare, intellectual property, pope benedict xvi, progress, technology
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Information Age...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Information Age...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology - Freedom or Slavery?
The question is where do we want technology to lead us? A Utopian future of unlimited resources proposed by Gene Roddenberry or something along the lines of 1984.
By ignoring the implications of technology and spending progressively more time on issues like Roe Vs Wade we are missing much more critical changes to our future. Privacy as we know it is quickly coming to an end thanks to many implementations of technology.
Cloning is real and genetically altering people is more than likely already happening. These uses of technology will have huge impacts on our society but no-one is considering them in open debate.
We need to think generations ahead into the future, this us what good planners do. The time for "here and now" politics has passed, we need real leadership not a lip-service. We owe it to future generations to start tackling the hard questions of our future now rather than passing the buck until it is too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think he's just sore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think he's just sore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think he's just sore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... it's hundreds of years old, but still under copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck the pope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also to Joel, I know you put it in quotes so I'm assuming you were referencing something specific. If not, they're technically pieces of bread, not crackers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Anonymous CowardProverbs 15:1; "A mocker resents correction; he will not consult the wise." I'm not one
to quote the Bible on-line, but it seemed fitting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not supporting that speach
"Grave imbalances are produced," he writes, "when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution."
I cannot advocate theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is simply saying the political action should encompass concepts that allow a proper allocation of some benefit to the poor. That may be as simple as advocating a partnership between a buisness, and a non-for-profit agency. Think Bill Gates Foundation. Your reading is oversimplistic at best, or perhaps you're just trolling. Either way, you have it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]