Dear Reader,
Why now enjoy sharing networks for music, ebooks, videos and software are so popular? There are many reasons, but the one that is crucial - more effective compared to regular retail prices low, indeed almost negligible for the purchase and the other is the lack of protection mechanisms, respectively, low costs of abuse - through digitization and the Internet. Today I'd like I only give you an overview of protection mechanisms:
first culture of determined protection
develop culturally conditioned in any society norms and values that can act as protection mechanisms for intellectual property. Under standards means interpretation independent ideas of what behavior of members of society - seems appropriate - within certain tolerances. Values are enduring beliefs that the individual, a community, or that within certain social systems for desirable or respected and lived. influence beyond the immediate objectives of norms and values, the judgments of actors on specific situations, such as the observance of property contracts, but their action plans. Recognized misconduct is punished through social sanctions such as withdrawal of friendship or ostracism. As a result of the country dominated by societal influences and largely unknown protective effect of norms and values, however, no generalizable, economic well-founded statements on the enforcement of property rights formulated in intellectual achievements. In the next posts I will therefore refrain from a closer look.
second Government-initiated protection
Government intervention in the market for intellectual goods mainly comprise- the behavior controlling legislation ,
- the statutory collection of compulsory fees and taxes ,
- their distribution of compensation payments and subsidies, and
- the public provision of Intellectual Property .
are enshrined in laws restrictive regulations that securing exclusive Results of intellectual property rights in labor service. With their help is if the government juris-marginal conditions for the exercise of property rights and intended for the damage caused by abuse regulation. In its scope laws must be obeyed by all members of society. State institutions to control the law-abiding behavior and punish rights violations through defined Gesetzesver automatisms. With forced fees (taxes) and tax is about money demand services, public entities on the basis of legal regulations. Their discharge is controlled, sometimes sanctioned. The survey of compulsory fees particularly serves the pursuit of regulatory goals. Examples include the assigned fee includes the use of intellectual property, for example, GEZ-charge, royalty-fee, VG-word tax. In this particular case, fees charged by aiming to compensate for negative external effects of the abuse of intellectual property by compensation to rights holders. By contrast, tax revenues allocated to the budget and subject to any predetermined purpose. You can, for example, to subsidize economically desirable innovation or to refinance the state provision using innovative and creative works, such as refinancing of public service broadcasting.
third private Economical protection
The emphasis in the next few posts on the possibilities of the endogenous ex-assurance of market allocation processes by private entities. You can choose from various fraud protection and response mechanisms. To prevent abuse testing can even be waived disclosure of strategically important resources , such as knowledge or technology. In addition, capture technical protection solutions the special characteristics of the intellectual benefits which it is difficult to be observed consumer behavior arising risk of abuse. These include copy protection technologies, rights holders to submit information about adverse actions such as making illegal copies of (screening). Infor-mation asymmetries between buyers and sellers of intellectual work products and the resulting abuse incentives can also have marketing policies slow, implemented for example in differentiated services contract in the acquisition of innovative and creative works. Depending on their preferences to choose the buyers perceived as optimal bid itself, and thus their behavior, respectively intentions manifest abuse (Self Selection). To increase the attractiveness of permitted practices in dealing with intellectual property, also lends itself to the institutional merger abuse or threatened geschädig-ter-market players and potential damage to. It would be conceivable, for example, the fusion of innovators and their competitors. In view of competition policy constraints of the latter protection solution and their limited applicability to the particular interest here Anbieter-/Nachfragerbeziehung it is only considered in the next posts on the edge.
0 comments:
Post a Comment