Comments for Do you believe in sharing or in owning? Do you rely on commons or on private property?

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

It is a heated debate in the scientific literature to know whether intellectual property rights (thereafter “IPRs”) restrict or encourage creation (Our answer is highly inspired by and uses concepts and arguments for which S. GHOSH should be credited: S. GOSH, “How to build a Commons: is intellectual property constrictive, facilitating or irrelevant?” in Understanding Knowledge as commons , MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 209-246, E. OSTROM & C. HESS (ed.)).
It is our belief that most protected creations wouldn’t exist without protective IPRs. Of course, strong arguments pertain to the view according to which IPRs restrict creation: IPRs could be seen as aggressive because, through their function of exclusion (excluding other persons of the use of one’s creation) they may (in the case of copyrights) prevent creation of works strongly inspired or similar to preexisting ones. As far as patents go, it can be argued that patenting inventions could hinder scientific or technological progress development rate since they could bar others from using already scarce scientific resources. This is explained by the concept of “anticommons”. Michael Heller theoritized this concept in 1998 and speaks of the “tragedy of the anticommons” which lies, when it comes to knowledge, among other things, in the “potential underuse of scarce scientific resources caused by excessive intellectual property rights and overpatenting in biomedical research” (E. OSTROM & C. HESS, op. cit., 2007, p. 11. See also Heller, 1998). Of course, it could be argued the absence of patent rights could be compensated by the secrecy of one’s manufacturing process or even more simply the costs and know-how involved in said manufacturing, which would act as barriers to entry. However, in many trades, secrecy cannot be a substitute for patent rights, such as the pharmaceutical field, where relatively simple chemical analysis processes would be able to reveal a manufacturing process. In this same field (or in high-end, sophisticated technological fields), it should also be noted that high research costs justify protection by IRPs, since the immediate manufacturing of a generic, cheaper medication would prevent the initial manufacturer from obtaining a return on their research investment.

There is, according to us, an undeniable value (not to say necessity) to the existence of IPRs: even if in the hypothesis of their non-existence, some creations would still be rendered public by their authors, the vast majority of them would, appropriately, be deterred by the perspective of potential misappropriation of their work (freeriding). More than legal protection, IPRs offer, in our eyes, the social gratification that every creator would (and should) expect when publicly releasing their content. For example, considering copyrights in the artistical spheres, it could be argued that art is a means of human expression and not just a way to secure profit and that, therefore, IPRs are irrelevant in those spheres. However, that argument is reasonably debunked by the important components of social gratification and the everliving necessity to earn a living, which are not considered in this very legalist point of view. Patents are more often than not justified (beyond social gratification) by its role as incentive regarding innovation on a particular market and its role as enabler regarding the necessity of covering the costs involved in the development of the invention.

Furthermore, the balance between exclusion and necessity to render public so as not to hinder progress is – according to us – struck by the expiration mechanisms applied to IPRs. In any case, if such is their wish, a creator can still choose not to be protected by IPRs. This more “defensive” view of the IPRs enjoys, in our eyes, more credit than the aforementioned (more aggressive) view.

2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

It must be observed that “commons in ideas” (which more regularly are referred to in the scientific literature as “knowledge commons”), even though they can fall under the general concept of “commons” behave substantially differently than their “land” or “natural resources” counterparts. At least two notable differences ought to be mentioned here:
Subtractivity (rivalry): where natural resources are “subtractive” which means that their use by an individual or group of individuals reduces the benefits that can be drawn from them by others, knowledge on the contrary is typically something that tends to grow the more it spreads among individuals (“cornucopia of the commons”) (E. OSTROM & C. HESS (ed.), Understanding Knowledge as commons, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 49).
Clear boundaries, delimitation of the object of the commons: it goes without saying that natural/land commons, given their tangible nature, can be more or less precisely delimited in space, contrary to knowledge which is inherently intangible. This difference is particularly important when it comes to the governance of the commons: making rules applicable to a defined set of land is naturally different when managing ideas, information, data, etc. Even though knowledge can be confined within a closed area (library, database,…) the ability of the human mind to store such information combined with the ease that nowadays characterizes the duplication of such information theoretically renders the knowledge commons that much more challenging to govern than natural-resources based commons.

3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law

As exposed in our answer to the first question, we believe that even though art can be considered firstly as a means of human expression characterized by perpetual innovation (which would then not be stopped by the absence of a copyright), this narrow point of view is easily rebutted by its exclusion of other very important interests: the need of creators for social recognition (which could be heavily undermined by the absence of the copyright, through content misappropriation) and the more practical need to earn a decent living. Indeed, in a legal order where anyone’s creation could freely be used in any activity (even copying), creators would not have any incentive to disclose their work anymore.
However, obviously, some forms of art cannot easily be appropriated by others and would not necessarily be non-profitable in the absence of copyrights, which is the case for sculptures or very particular works of architecture.

Oui nous croyons que la plupart des créations n’existeraient pas si elles n’étaient pas protégées par les droits de propriété intellectuelle par exemple, les médicaments : si les entreprises pharmaceutiques n’ont aucune protection, elles n’ont aucun intérêt à investir dans la recherche. Mais cela vaut aussi pour toutes les autres biens (œuvres artistiques, marque, inventions technologiques, …). Tous les biens demandant un certain investissement financier préalable ne viendraient probablement pas à exister. Par conséquent, tout ce qui concerne les produits technologique, les recherches médicales ne seraient pas produites contrairement à la musique et les livres. sans cette protection juridique, on aurait moins d’avancées technologies et médicales.

Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?
We do not think that most intellectual creations would not have existed if theses rights did not emerge. But it’s true to say that industry would not have developed as it is now if there had been no intellectual property rights. Indeed, the goal of the industries is to make profit. In this way, industries are always looking to be the best on the market by innovating, researching, developing. From all theses activities results some new technologies. If it was impossible to protect them, industries in their goal to make profit, would never have made the investments. All the things they would have developed could be instantly taken by other without making any investment.
But it’s also true to say that there would not have been no creations because they can also be protected by the secret (Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure). The secret is the perfect alternative to the lack of regulation and can be the best way to protect inventions in certains cases. But the disadvantage is that creation is never stimulated. As an example in the scope of the patents, inventions must be divulged to be protected by the patent. If there was no patent, the inventions would never be divulged and nobody could ever have access to the technologies developed.
This must be also counterbalanced by the fact that all industries are not equal in front of the regulation or not of the intellectual sphere. In some industries it may be easy to keep secret like in the alimentary industry, because it’s easy to get a similar product but pretty much impossible to get the same. But in the automotive industry, by the process of reverse engineering it’s really easier to copy some components of the car. This is the horizontal way to take the problem of the secret.
We can also take it vertically, we can pin that all enterprises in terms of size are not equal and can not protect their secrets in the same way, the little bakery has not the same means than a big pharmaceutical industry.
The question of the intangible goods is much different because it concerns goods that can’t be protected by patents because they must be a technical solution to a technical problem. So intangible goods like business models can’t be protected with European patents, which is not the same in the United States. Even if there is some initiatives to get them protected it’s not yet the case (Le monde, Faut il protéger le French-Tech ?, 2-3/09/2017).
So we should go on other rights like copyright or brands, and we think that it’s true to say that same intellectual creations would never have come to the fore because people would have been much more frightened to share their ideas, because they could have been taken by anyone.
2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?
The first main difference between commons in land and common in ideas is that common in ideas are non rival. It means that if someone’s using apart of the land, or is owning a such thing like a computer, no one can use it at the same time. That’s not the same for commons in ideas, many people can use the same idea, concept, at the same time. These are not restricted from a material point of view.
Another difference between commons in land and commons in ideas remains in the scope of patents. Indeed, as said earlier, patent can only protect technical solutions resolving technical issues. Furthermore, they need to be described completely in the patent procedure in order to see if the invention is completely new or not, which is pretty much impossible in the scope of ideas.
3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?
We think that copyright is also a right which can encourage to create, because copyright, beside it’s goal to protect the artistic creations of the authors can also be an alternative while there is a problem with a brand or a patent. The copyright is entirely part of the creative sphere and it should be protected in a way he encourages the creativity because it can be a safety net for the companies which needs it.
We can imagine the case of a brand with get cancelled by a tribunal, and the only way for the company to defend itself is to invoke the rights it has gotten by the way of a written contract with the author of the logo.
An other interest which would not be protected if there was no copyright is about all the moral rights of the artists. Beside the economic dimension it can happen that the work of the artist can have a sentinel dimension which has also to be protected by law.
There’s many moral rights concerning copyrights which cannot be dissociated from it and they could never have existed without this regulation. There are plenty of these, like the right to the paternity, to the integrity, the right to adapt it,… XI.165, XI.166 CDE.

Loix Marie
Mennig Eugénie
van de Walle Charlotte
Michel François
Delatte François

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

No. I believe that certain creations could be efficiently protected without intellectual property rights as such. Of course, we can protect our idea through a patent’s right, but it’s not the only way to do it. Another means to protect our creation is not by filing a patent, but also by keeping it secret. A well-known example of this technique is the Coca Cola recipe.

It’s also possible to protect your rights and to improve your technology through a patent pledge. Here we can speak about Tesla that opened the access to all its patents. The message was “All our patent are belong to you”. It follows the spirit of the open-source movement for the advancement of the electric vehicle technology. The message is clear, Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO is not convinced that a patent is the better way to improve technology. The only condition is to use Tesla’s technologies with good faith. I guess that good faith means that if a company developed new techniques through Tesla’s patent, the last one gets a right to use this technology in return.

Another way to protect your ideas without using intellectual property is the Run lean and fast technique. Basically, A company launches its new innovations in a very fast way, so the competitor does not have time to plagiarize that new innovation. So, we can observe that there is an increasing place for sharing in competitive sectors. Privacy is no longer the only way to protect and improve your invention.

An example of intangible good that would probably never come to the fore if it’s not trough intellectual property right is the copyright. I believe that the only way to protect the creation of an author is trough copyright.

2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they. How would you call the commons in area of ideas?

The Common land is the land owned collectively by a number of people, or by one person, but over which other people have certain traditional rights, such as to allow their livestock to graze upon it, to collect wood, etc.

The Commons in ideas is the fact that nowadays, less and less companies decide to protect and improve their technology trough intellectual property. There is a great development of the open-sourcing.

The first difference is that the possibility of sharing the lands is limited by nature. Land resources are limited, you cannot share what doesn’t exist. The commons in ideas, for their part have no limit in the sense that human creativity is endless.

3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected

Concerning copyright, we think that it’snt necessary to protect more the copyright.
The ratio-legis of copyright law is to stimulate creation, by allowing a viable economic activity to the creator, and to influence the diffusion of the creation to the public. The concept of create must therefore be understood in a broad way. This concept of create is already strongly encompassing. We do not see why we should create other copyright or strengthen it.

On the other hand, the copyright regime is overtaken by the advent of new property. The conditions and scope of copyright are not suited to the advent of these new properties. In our opinion, it is not necessary to modify the copyright regime, but rather to create new rights that will regulate the new assets (a right to personal data, a right to domain names, a right to online reputation, …).

1. Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore ?

Il est légitime de penser que, sans les droits intellectuels pour assurer la protection de leurs créations, les personnes créatives/inventives auraient moins de motivation pour développer des idées.
En effet, rien ne leur garantirait que des concurrents malintentionnés copient leurs idées ou se les approprient.
Ainsi, nous pouvons affirmer que les différentes formes de propriété intellectuelle sont mises en place dans le but de favoriser le progrès technologique et l’émergence d’œuvres nouvelles.
Si on prend pour exemple le brevet, celui-ci confère un monopole temporaire à son titulaire lui fournissant ainsi les incitations nécessaires à l’innovation. Mais ce monopole est assorti d’une obligation de divulgation qui poussera la société à tirer rapidement parti de l’invention brevetée.
Concernant les biens incorporels, il existe notamment le droit d’auteur qui constitué de prérogatives que la loi reconnaît aux créateurs d’œuvres littéraires et artistiques. Ainsi les auteurs pourront contrôler l’exploitation qui est faite de leur création en plus de protéger l’intégrité de celle-ci.
Le but du droit d’auteur est de favoriser la création, en garantissant à ceux qui s’y consacrent la possibilité de rendre cette activité économique viable et de permettre la diffusion de la création dans le public en y associant les créateurs.

2. There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

Comme l’avait relevé Ostrom, les “commons in land” ont pour différences qu’il s’agit de biens appartenant en commun aux habitants d’une communauté rurale et destinés à être employés aux besoins de la commune en général, ou des particuliers qui la composent.

3. Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?

Non, cela n’est pas convaincant. Il faut prendre le droit d’auteur dans son aspect économique, en effet, il est important de préciser que ce droit a pour objectif d’apporter une solution à la contradiction entre financement des auteurs et libre accès aux œuvres. L’instauration du droit d’auteur vise à rendre l’œuvre de l’esprit exclusive, en octroyant à l’auteur un monopole d’exploitation sur sa découverte. Ainsi, le droit d’auteur permet à l’auteur de couvrir ses frais de création, et ce faisant, de percevoir une rémunération par l’exploitation pécuniaire du monopole qui lui est conféré. Il obtient donc une motivation supplémentaire à la création car il peut subvenir à ses besoin grâce au droit d’auteur.

1.No, so I cannot give examples. Many think that people would stop creating if there were no such rights, but however there is ample evidence to the contrary.
During the centuries predating the IP era, there have been lots of works that we keep admiring today and, more to the point, the IP era would not exist without the IP-less era that predates it. Would we have a modern world if the discovery of fire or the wheel had been so protected?
2.Ideas are ideas, are immaterial and the main consequence of that fact, often used by e-pirates is that copying an idea or any digital work does not deprive its owner from using it.
The second difference is that we cannot foresee what the future of ideas might be, which makes the “world of ideas” limitless, unlike land or any kind of physical resource that are part of a computable pool.
3.First of all, the answer to the question “is this convincing in the field of copyright” is an obvious no, but of course the real question is: are copyrights needed at all. The answer is mostly sociological.
As explained in answer 1, most people nowadays believe that in today’s world, creativity needs to be protected by law. But this was not always the case: writing a good limerick that was copied by all popular singers used to be a mark of success. As of today, entities like Mozilla produced free software (the Firefox web browser) so appreciated that it has become an industry standard.
If no copyright existed, some companies like pharmaceutical companies (for example) would be endangered but on the other hand, the often dire competition existing between pharma labs entails a waste of research resources if observed from a perspective of a finite world. As that perspective is often eschewed, there is no real conundrum from the law point of view: if property is commonly accepted as a fundamental right , then ideas must be defended – if only because even though ideas are immaterial, their implementation can provide very material benefits.
A shift to cooperation rather than competition would of course make the IP notion obsolete, but it falls off the limits of our societal model

1) Pour un particulier, il est essentiel, nécessaire et suffisant que les droits de la propriété intellectuelle existent et lui garantissent une protection, une exclusivité d’exploitation adéquate correspondant à la récompense afférente au risque, à l’investissement et au temps dédiés à la création, à la recherche et au développement dudit projet, bien ou service.
Par exemple, le milieu de la recherche pharmaceutique impose un investissement colossal, aussi bien financier qu’en terme d’années. La recherche, les études, le développement et la commercialisation d’un médicament prend environs 7 à 10 ans. Pendant cette première décennie, aucun bénéfice n’est retiré en terme financier. Ce n’est qu’après avoir découvert, après avoir testé, après avoir fait valider et avoir reçu le permis de mise en vente, que les sociétés pharmaceutiques retireront un bénéfice.
Sans une protection adéquate, personne -privée- n’irait investir autant. En effet, si une personne seule -morale ou physique- devait investir sans pouvoir avoir un retour sur investissement, la recherche serait impensable et les initiatives seraient freinées.
Par contre, si le système de la propriété privée n’existait pas, ce serait l’état qui prendrait en charge les recherches et les développements pour des biens et/ou services nécessaires. Dès lors, ça serait de l’ordre des Communs, car au final, ce que l’état fait, recherche, c’est par l’investissement découlant de nos impôts, donc de tous.

2)Les biens communs en terre sont situés à un endroit précis et le nombre est limité : par exemple, une forêt ne comporte que X arbres, un champ ne comporte que X champignons, etc. Ils ont une utilité particulière et sont à la portée de tous. C’est le cas, par exemple, d’une forêt communale. Celle-ci est accessible à tous, moyennant le respect de certaines règles. Par exemple, chaque citoyen peut s’y promener, peut cueillir certaines fleurs, peut récolter des champignons ou encore chasser lorsque c’est la période.
A contrario, le monde des idées n’est pas situé à un endroit précis. Il est accessible à tous. De plus, le monde des idées n’est pas limité en nombre. La seule véritable limite est celle de l’imagination. Par exemple, vous remarquez qu’aller tous les jours chercher de l’eau dans un ruisseau situé à 4 kilomètres est très épuisant et chronophage. Dès lors, vous tenterez de trouver une solution à ce problème : ne plus devoir y aller chaque jour et/ou ne plus être limité par la capacité que vous pouvez transporter.
Trouver une solution, un moyen adéquat, ne peut faire l’objet d’un droit restrictif, exclusif de propriété.
Dans le domaine des idées, certaines choses ne peuvent faire l’objet d’appropriation exclusive sous peine d’empêcher la création par d’autres personnes. Par exemple, si vous avez l’idée, en tout premier, d’exploiter du bois afin de créer des meubles. Vous ne pouvez pas vous approprier cette idée, ce concept. En effet, sans quoi nombres d’objets -comme la roue, le moulin, les flèches, …- n’auraient pas vus le jour. Par contre, vous pouvez vous approprier l’idée de créer, à partir du bois, un meuble en particulier.
Il en est de même pour le concept de « roue ». Si un droit exclusif portait sur cela, personne ne pourrait le décliner pour d’autres usages, comme la voiture, dynamo, … En effet, il s’agit d’un concept rudimentaire essentiel à la collectivité.

3)Le droit d’auteur est un domaine particulier. En effet, pour que quelque chose soit protégé par ledit droit, il faut que l’auteur ait projeté un part de sa personnalité. Dès lors, protection ou pas, seul l’auteur est capable de projeter sa personnalité, donc de créer l’objet particulier.
Par contre, nous ne trouvons pas cela convaincant en ce sens que créer n’est pas la seule préoccupation de l’auteur. Il est nécessaire de protéger « l’après création ». Partons de l’exemple d’un grand peintre. Si ses peintures acquièrent une grande valeur, c’est parce qu’elles sont uniques et rares, ce qui fait qu’elles deviennent spéciales, appréciables. S’il n’était pas interdit de reproduire une œuvre artistique sans l’aval du primogéniteur, comme c’est le cas dans certains pays, les peintures du grand peintre n’auraient plus tant de valeur, vu que le nombre en serait multiplié (en considération que les techniques de reproduction offrent une reproduction fidèle et sans faille).
L’autre intérêt majeur qui serait mis à mal si la loi n’accordait pas l’exclusivité du droit d’auteur réside dans l’aspect budgétaire. Bien que nous ayons déjà abordé ce point dans notre exemple ci-dessus, le droit d’auteur protège l’œuvre, mais offre également l’exclusivité à l’auteur de l’optimisation financière qu’il pourrait en retirer en concédant une licence, par exemple.

1) Do you believe that most creations protected by intellectual property rights would not exist without those rights? Can you give examples? Are there some types of intangible goods that would probably never come to the fore?

L’une des principales raisons d’être des droits de propriété intellectuelle est l’encouragement qu’ils suscitent envers la communauté dans sa création. Sans droits de protection, les individus sont moins enclins à créer, inventer et ce car il n’est aucun bénéfice à en tirer. Le fait de pouvoir protéger une œuvre naissante permet à celui qui la conceptualise de pouvoir se l’approprier et récolter une certaine exclusivité, un cachet ou bien encore une certaine reconnaissance de la communauté. Néanmoins, même si ces droits sont essentiels en vue d’encourager une certaine création, ils peuvent être également un frein si une invention fait l’objet d’une certaine exclusivité à long terme. D’où, comme en matière de brevet pour ne citer qu’un exemple, la limitation de ces droits dans le temps ou encore dans certaines formes. Ainsi, par exemple, s’il n’était pas un brevet accordé pour la découverte de nouveaux traitements médicamenteux, les industries pharmaceutiques ne s’investiraient pas dans la recherche et ce car elles n’en tireraient aucun profit. Ce brevet ne peut cependant à long terme empêcher d’autres firmes de produire ce même traitement en vue d’éviter une situation monopolistique sur le marché. Il en va de même avec les inventions automobiles,… Pour ce qui est des biens incorporels, cela pourrait être un logiciel ou programme informatique, un site internet,…

2) There are at least two main differences between the commons in land and the “commons in ideas”, what are they? How would you call the commons in the area of ideas?

Deux des principales différences entre les “commons in land” et “commons in ideas” est tout d’abord l’immatérialité des « commons in ideas » comparé au « commons in land ». Les idées communes font parties d’un patrimoine immatériel, intangible alors que les biens communs qui sont eux matériels sont beaucoup plus facile à définir et appréhender. Une autre différence se trouve dans le caractère illimité des idées communes qui peuvent à toiut moment émaner d’un esprit alors que les biens communs sont en nombre limité de par leur création. Les « commons of ideas » sont ainsi caractérisées par des idées et concepts de l’esprit que ne sont attribués à personne et sont partagés par les individus en société, ces idées et concepts sont illimités et immatériels.

3) Those who advocate the commons for ideas and criticize the “second enclosure movement” (resulting from the creation of IP laws) believe that there is no need to provide additional incentives to create. Is this convincing in the field of copyright? What other interests would not be protected if no copyright (IP) exclusivity would be granted by the law?

Il en va de même pour le droit d’auteur en particulier que pour l’ensemble des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Sans protection garantie, bon nombre d’individus ne seraient pas enclin à produire des œuvres et ce par manque d’exclusivité ou d’attribution de ces dernières. Cependant, pour ce qui est du droit d’auteur, l’on ne peut pas parler d’une protection intégrale et ce car en matière d’œuvre littéraire ou cinématographique, la protection accordée aux particuliers s’attache plus à la forme qu’au fond, aux idées générales qui, si elles rencontrent un succès important seront reprises et retravaillées. Cela se voit notamment en matière de littérature de loisir et au cinéma. Pour ce qui est des ouvrages scientifiques, cela reste néanmoins différents.

Ainsi, malgré cette protection limitée, l’on peut toujours voir une forte implication des individus dans le domaine de la création littéraire, cinématographique et autre.

Néanmoins, ce droit d’auteur joue un rôle protecteur quant à certains autres intérêts à savoir non pas la protection entière de l’œuvre mais le droit d’y voir associer son nom, d’être citer, de pouvoir tirer les fruits de son travail personnel,… tout ceci ne serait pas possible sans une certaine protection.

1. We believe that some creations protected by intellectual property rights would exist even in the absence of those rights. If we think about pieces of art created by what is usually called « artists » (such as writers, painters, performers, singers,…), we don’t think that their priority, in the process of creation, is to wondering on whether what they are going do is going to be lawfully protected — most of all, it depends of the context where they want communicate their creation. Artists creates something because they might have some wish, some flame on inspiration « forcing » them to put their ideas out of their minds into their favorite medium (a song, a book, a novel,…). Maybe the fact of having their ideas protected is a priority for some artists. But most of them, we think, create something firstly because they strongly want to do so.

As far as we’re concerned, one member of our group likes writing and she is a member of a forum of authors in Internet. They usually post some of their novels on blogs or even in the forum, which is a public place where even non-members of the website can go and read the texts. Most of those persons like sharing their texts freely in such a matter that they can — virtually — met readers who let them know what they think about what they’ve written. It’s a collective place where constructive readers, who want to help authors to improve their writings by commentating (“commenter”) it by telling authors how they feel while reading, etc…which is useful to know when you’re an author.
But she knows some of them that are reluctant to share their texts because they fear that someone could steal their ideas.

On the other hand, the answer would be very different concerning the patents in the field of the pharmaceutical industry or technological industry for exemple. She remembers a case that a former teacher told her, about the fact that big pharmaceutical companies based in Europe invented a medicine against AIDS. This affair occurred in South Africa in 2003 — but is maybe still existent today. In a nutshell, the pharmaceutical companies, which had the patents on the vaccine, didn’t wanted to sell the vaccine at a lower price — than the price existing in Europe — to populations in South Africa, in such a way that they could afford it — this affairs was leaded by associations representing the seropositive peoples in South Africa. Would those companies produce the medicine, knowing that they wouldn’t be paid as much as what they expected ? This leads to complicate questions, because they maybe have made ten years of expensive researches before having a medicine that can be sold. In this point of view, and to answer the question, we wouldn’t say that the « creation » (the medicine) would exist without the existence of the patent rights. Even though we don’t know some but, maybe, somewhere, a pharmaceutical company shares freely medicine very useful and helpful for a part of the population.

2. Firstly, a difference between the commons in land and the commons in ideas is that the goods existing under intellectual property are non-rivalrous, i.e. that « they have the ability to be simultaneously enjoyed by unlimited agents without diminishment » (https://www.udayton.edu/directory/law/documents/copyright-and-the-tragedy-of-the-common_reilly.pdf). In others words, several people might have an utility, an use, of those ideas without putting down (reducing) their value. For instance, the data.

Secondly, another difference between them both is the inexhaustible character (« l’inépuisabilité ») of the commons in ideas, contrary to the commons in lands. For instance, again, the data, of even others creations. A song can be gives off (« diffusé ») an unlimited number of times at the radio.

Thirdly, there is no state sovereignty upon some (most ?) goods protected under intellectual property, contrary to the commons in lands such as electricity.

In the area of ideas, the « commons » might be the goods — some of them being intangible — released in the public domain.

3. Le droit d’auteur confère à l’auteur des droits patrimoniaux (principalement les droits de reproduction et de communication au public) (Art. XI.165, § 1er CDE). Tout acte relevant du périmètre d’un des droits exclusifs de l’auteur devra, préalablement à son accomplissement, être autorisé par lui. Cette autorisation pourrait être octroyée en contrepartie de redevances. L’auteur aura donc intérêt à exploiter au maximum son œuvre, en concédant notamment de nombreuses licences à des tiers. Cependant, les droits patrimoniaux font l’objet de nombreuses exceptions, créant des situations dans lesquelles l’auteur ne pourra plus s’opposer à l’exploitation économique de son œuvre. (Art. XI. 189 et s. CDE) Certaines d’entre elles ne trouveront à s’appliquer que si l’œuvre a fait l’objet d’une divulgation préalable et licite. Par conséquent, l’auteur pourrait être réticent à divulguer son œuvre. Toutefois, l’application de certaines exceptions devrait être assortie d’une « compensation équitable » dans le chef de l’auteur (Considérant 35 Directive 2001/29/CE).

A défaut de droit d’auteur, les intérêts moraux de l’auteur ne seraient pas protégés. En effet, l’auteur d’une œuvre n’est pas uniquement titulaire de droits économiques. Il se voit aussi conféré des droits moraux : les droits de divulgation, d’attribution et d’intégrité. (Art. XI.165, § 2 CDE)

1. I believe, indeed, that intellectual property rights are needed in order to protect those creations. In fact, intellectual creations are often easy to steal because they can be copied. So if they are not well protected, no-one will deprive themselves of using them.
For example, anything that is in a digital format, such as photos, music, movies. But also the design of clothing, the name of a brand, or a production process.
There is a reason why we sometimes talk about trade secrets. This is an additional way to protect yourself since these processes can be copied.

2. A first difference is that commons in land are rare goods, which are not extensible. While the commons in ideas can be shared without limits. 
From this difference follows that an excessive and selfish use of a common in land results in a degradation of this good to the detriment of all, since in the end, no one can benefit from it properly.
While a circulation of ideas, according to Philippe Aigrain, allows cooperation and diversity of actors, which does not destroy the common good but strengthens it.
I would therefore describe the commons in the area of ideas as exponential.

3. Copyright is specific. Indeed, for the author, it is more interesting to have a « proprietary » approach, which allows him to benefit from his work, than a « shared » approach. In a shared approach, his creative and original efforts would be in vain since everyone could appropriate his ideas. The purpose of copyright is to guarantee authenticity from a person’s point of view. Then, reinterpretations and parodies remain possible, but without detriment to the original work.
If copyright exclusivity were no longer guaranteed, it would also be to the detriment of the recipients of the works, since without being able to live off them, authors would become fewer or less qualitative.

1. Nous pensons que les créations peuvent exister en dehors de toute protection intellectuelle à travers le savoir-faire, la créativité, des procédés secrets ou par une célérité des avancées technologiques ou en utilisant des procédés méconnus du public en général. Cependant, ce qui est dit ci-dessus n’est pas exhaustive et véridique pour toutes les créations.
En exemple, nous voyons Coca-Cola qui n’est plus totalement protégé mais qui garde une place importante sur le marché par une technique secrète des ingrédients.
2. Mettre en commun ses idées fait en sorte que l’idée va être sur du long terme tandis que mettre en commun les terres et les ressources en général va se faire sur un court terme.
3. Non parce que le droit d’auteur est une barrière et des protections et finalement des entraves au marché donc sont antagoniste de cette façon de pensée.
Les intérêts sont la barrière du marché, les mécanismes de protection, la protection des droits moraux et le respect de l’honneur.