Study the Anglo-American and Continental European school of IP. Write a short comparative analysis to your blog (if you have clear preference for one over another, explain that, too).
While going through different studies and materials about Anglo-American and Continental European school of IP, I found one research which caught my attention. It was a paper written by Andrew F. Christie who studied the paradox of civil and common law approaches on private copying.
Continental Europe juristiction is called civil law, which means that laws are written in collection and not determined by judges (Wikipedia). These jurisdictions put great emphasis on moral rights and allow judges to interpret laws according to the specific case. Anglo-American jurisdiction is common law, which is strictly legislated and allow no room for interpretations of the laws.
Christie finds the paradox in these two jurisdictions in the approach to handling intellectual property and private copying. He says that statutory licence and levy schemes for private copying have been readily accepted in continental European countries for many decades. By contrast, such schemes have only recently begun to emerge in common law countries. Christie says that this situation is paradoxical - the statutory licence and levy scheme is common in those jurisdictions which place significant emphasis on author's moral rights and yet is rare in those countries that give primacy to the utilitarian rationale for copyright.
As a conclusion he finds that common law countries are beginning to develop their statutory licences and levy schemes of their own and it is becoming more and more common. He thinks that these are the only ways to protect intellectual property.
In my opinion it seems like the continental European approach is more controllable and clear in a sense that it allows more protection for the authors and their rights. Therefore I would probably prefer this school for IP.
No comments:
Post a Comment