2759 records matched your query
03555aam a2200361 i 4500 001 BF6DFFFEA5B811ECBC4A196C2DECA4DB 003 SILO 005 20220317010139 008 210624s2022 nyu b 001 0 eng 010 $a 2021031260 020 $a 019761440X 020 $a 9780197614402 035 $a (OCoLC)1260171989 040 $a DLC $b eng $e rda $c DLC $d OCLCO $d OCLCF $d BDX $d YDX $d WLL $d SILO 042 $a pcc 043 $a n-us--- 050 00 $a KF2979 $b .S658 2022 100 1 $a Snow, Ned, $e author. 245 10 $a Intellectual property and immorality : $b against protecting harmful creations of the mind / $c Ned Snow. 264 1 $a New York, NY : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2022] 300 $a xvi, 337 pages ; $c 25 cm 504 $a Includes bibliographical references and index. 505 0 $a Introduction -- Moral limitations in IP theory -- Arguments against denying protection -- The problem of judicial moral discretion -- Works involving unlawful conduct -- Judicial history on unlawful works -- A constitutional limitation -- Progress, science, and useful arts -- Legislating morality -- Free speech -- Tying it all together. 520 $a "This book argues that certain intellectual creations should not receive copyright or patent protection because they are harmful to society. It posits that the theories of intellectual property and the Intellectual Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggest this conclusion. The book responds to counterarguments: namely, that denying protection might increase the output of objectionable works, that other laws should address the moral problems; and that intellectual property functions better under a laissez-faire approach. After responding to these arguments, the book considers the roles of government actors in denying protection. It argues that courts should exercise their powers of equity to deny relief for works that are connected to unlawful acts of the rights-holder, and that courts should exercise their constitutional powers to deny protection for specific categories of harmful expressions and inventions. Next, the book considers whether Congress has constitutional authority to deny protection for works that it considers to be immoral. In concluding that Congress does have such authority, the book sets forth specific criteria that Congress should apply in exercising its moral discretion. Finally, the book considers whether denying intellectual property protection on moral grounds would violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It concludes that principles of free speech afford Congress considerable discretion to deny patent protection but only narrow discretion to deny copyright protection. It also concludes that the Free Speech Clause is consistent with judicial denial of protection for the limited categories of works that fall outside the Intellectual Property Clause"-- $c Provided by publisher. 650 0 $a Intellectual property $x Moral and ethical aspects $z United States. 650 0 $a Freedom of expression $z United States. 650 7 $a Freedom of expression. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01200263 650 7 $a Intellectual property $x Moral and ethical aspects. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00975784 651 7 $a United States. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01204155 776 08 $i Online version: $a Snow, Ned. $t Intellectual property and immorality $d New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2021 $z 9780197614419 $w (DLC) 2021031261 941 $a 1 952 $l OVUX522 $d 20230517010503.0 956 $a http://locator.silo.lib.ia.us/search.cgi?index_0=id&term_0=BF6DFFFEA5B811ECBC4A196C2DECA4DBInitiate Another SILO Locator Search