These days the controversy over the banning of one of the largest torrent site is airing. This is not only limited to the entertainment industry, we are plagued by the ‘neo liberal’ onslaught of the regime of ‘intellectual property rights’.
You might be remembering that few years back Supreme Court had protected the rights of consumers and upheld the production of generic medicines. They are the copy of the original patented formula and are sold at low prices. The pharmaceutical lobby has been trying hard to protect its interest and voice concerns over the blatant reproduction of its hard earned medical formulae.
This debate of public vs the private interests (of corporate honchos) takes an ugly turn in the education sector. My seniors in DU told me about the arrest of a college photocopier who had been reproducing prints from copyrighted books, despite the same books being in the syllabus! From essential services like health and education to the entertainment sector, this debate about the protection of the rights of the owner has augmented.
One side claims that the creator has full rights of disposing his produce in whatever way she deems fit. It is justice when you acknowledge and respect the power of one’s invention. That is the only way a society can flourish where the labor of man is valued and revered.
The other side is equally convincing too. They claim that this ‘creative producer’ has benefited a lot from the society, which has given her the context and resources to utilize her full potential. Further, morally, the interest of one individual can never subsume that of the entire society. It is not just to let a poor person die because she cannot afford the costly medicine available, simply because it is against the conventions of humanity.
The vociferous arguments continue from both sides citing a variety of reasons. The final judgement is solely contingent on the moral principles one hold dear. It now remains to be seen which side finally triumphs.
Written by Rishya Dharmani
"Life is not a mystery, as they say, rather it is simplicity itself. Unlearn, fail and realize the true joy."
This debate of public vs the private interests (of corporate honchos) takes an ugly turn in the education sector. My seniors in DU told me about the arrest of a college photocopier who had been reproducing prints from copyrighted books, despite the same books being in the syllabus! From essential services like health and education to the entertainment sector, this debate about the protection of the rights of the owner has augmented.
One side claims that the creator has full rights of disposing his produce in whatever way she deems fit. It is justice when you acknowledge and respect the power of one’s invention. That is the only way a society can flourish where the labor of man is valued and revered.
The other side is equally convincing too. They claim that this ‘creative producer’ has benefited a lot from the society, which has given her the context and resources to utilize her full potential. Further, morally, the interest of one individual can never subsume that of the entire society. It is not just to let a poor person die because she cannot afford the costly medicine available, simply because it is against the conventions of humanity.
The vociferous arguments continue from both sides citing a variety of reasons. The final judgement is solely contingent on the moral principles one hold dear. It now remains to be seen which side finally triumphs.
Written by Rishya Dharmani
"Life is not a mystery, as they say, rather it is simplicity itself. Unlearn, fail and realize the true joy."