第二次圈地运动与公共领域的建构

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Contemporary Problems Pub Date : 2003-12-15 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.470983
J. Boyle
{"title":"第二次圈地运动与公共领域的建构","authors":"J. Boyle","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.470983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We are in the middle of a second enclosure movement. It sounds grandiloquent to call it \"the enclosure of the intangible commons of the mind,\" but in a very real sense that is just what it is. True, the new state-created property rights may be \"intellectual\" rather than \"real,\" but once again things that were formerly thought of as either common property or uncommodifiable are being covered with new, or newly extended, property rights. In this article, I try to develop the vocabulary and the analytic tools necessary to turn the tide of enclosure. I offer an historical sketch of various types of skepticism about intellectual property, from the antimonopolist criticisms of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, through the emergence of affirmative arguments for the public domain, to the use of the language of the commons to defend the possibility of distributed methods of non-proprietary production. In many ways, it turns out, concepts of the public domain show the same variation in assumptions, and the same analytic differences, as the concept of property itself. I conclude by arguing that, for a number of reasons, the appropriate model for the change in thinking which I argue for comes from the history of the environmental movement. The invention of the concept of \"the environment\" pulls together a string of otherwise disconnected issues, offers analytical insight into the blindness implicit in prior ways of thinking, and leads to perception of common interest where none was seen before. Like the environment, the public domain must be \"invented\" before it is saved. Like the environment, like \"nature,\" the public domain turns out to be a concept that is considerably more slippery than many of us realize. And, like the environment, the public domain nevertheless turns out to be useful, perhaps even necessary.","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"161 1","pages":"33-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"698","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain\",\"authors\":\"J. Boyle\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.470983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We are in the middle of a second enclosure movement. It sounds grandiloquent to call it \\\"the enclosure of the intangible commons of the mind,\\\" but in a very real sense that is just what it is. True, the new state-created property rights may be \\\"intellectual\\\" rather than \\\"real,\\\" but once again things that were formerly thought of as either common property or uncommodifiable are being covered with new, or newly extended, property rights. In this article, I try to develop the vocabulary and the analytic tools necessary to turn the tide of enclosure. I offer an historical sketch of various types of skepticism about intellectual property, from the antimonopolist criticisms of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, through the emergence of affirmative arguments for the public domain, to the use of the language of the commons to defend the possibility of distributed methods of non-proprietary production. In many ways, it turns out, concepts of the public domain show the same variation in assumptions, and the same analytic differences, as the concept of property itself. I conclude by arguing that, for a number of reasons, the appropriate model for the change in thinking which I argue for comes from the history of the environmental movement. The invention of the concept of \\\"the environment\\\" pulls together a string of otherwise disconnected issues, offers analytical insight into the blindness implicit in prior ways of thinking, and leads to perception of common interest where none was seen before. Like the environment, the public domain must be \\\"invented\\\" before it is saved. Like the environment, like \\\"nature,\\\" the public domain turns out to be a concept that is considerably more slippery than many of us realize. And, like the environment, the public domain nevertheless turns out to be useful, perhaps even necessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Contemporary Problems\",\"volume\":\"161 1\",\"pages\":\"33-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"698\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Contemporary Problems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.470983\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.470983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 698

摘要

我们正处于第二次圈地运动中。把它称为“心灵的无形公地的封闭”听起来很夸张,但在一个非常真实的意义上,它就是这样。诚然,新的国家创造的产权可能是“知识产权”而不是“不动产”,但以前被认为是共同财产或不可商品化的东西再次被新的或新扩展的产权所覆盖。在本文中,我试图开发必要的词汇和分析工具,以扭转圈地的趋势。我提供了关于知识产权的各种怀疑论的历史概要,从对美国宪法制定者的反垄断批评,到对公共领域的肯定论点的出现,再到使用公地语言来捍卫非专有生产的分布式方法的可能性。事实证明,在很多方面,公共领域的概念与财产本身的概念一样,在假设上表现出相同的变化,在分析上表现出相同的差异。我的结论是,出于许多原因,我所主张的思维转变的合适模式来自于环境运动的历史。“环境”这一概念的发明将一系列原本不相关的问题联系在一起,提供了对先前思维方式中隐含的盲目性的分析洞察力,并导致了对以前从未见过的共同利益的感知。就像环境一样,公共领域必须先被“发明”,然后才能被拯救。就像环境一样,就像“自然”一样,公共领域是一个比我们许多人意识到的要狡猾得多的概念。而且,就像环境一样,公共领域最终证明是有用的,甚至可能是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain
We are in the middle of a second enclosure movement. It sounds grandiloquent to call it "the enclosure of the intangible commons of the mind," but in a very real sense that is just what it is. True, the new state-created property rights may be "intellectual" rather than "real," but once again things that were formerly thought of as either common property or uncommodifiable are being covered with new, or newly extended, property rights. In this article, I try to develop the vocabulary and the analytic tools necessary to turn the tide of enclosure. I offer an historical sketch of various types of skepticism about intellectual property, from the antimonopolist criticisms of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, through the emergence of affirmative arguments for the public domain, to the use of the language of the commons to defend the possibility of distributed methods of non-proprietary production. In many ways, it turns out, concepts of the public domain show the same variation in assumptions, and the same analytic differences, as the concept of property itself. I conclude by arguing that, for a number of reasons, the appropriate model for the change in thinking which I argue for comes from the history of the environmental movement. The invention of the concept of "the environment" pulls together a string of otherwise disconnected issues, offers analytical insight into the blindness implicit in prior ways of thinking, and leads to perception of common interest where none was seen before. Like the environment, the public domain must be "invented" before it is saved. Like the environment, like "nature," the public domain turns out to be a concept that is considerably more slippery than many of us realize. And, like the environment, the public domain nevertheless turns out to be useful, perhaps even necessary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Contemporary Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Re-Selection on Independent Decision Making in State Supreme Courts Voting Rights and the “Statutory Constitution” Challenging Gender in Single-Sex Spaces: Lessons from a Feminist Softball League Treaties and Human Rights: The Role of Long-Term Trends Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1