•  
  •  
 
Journal of Technology Law & Policy

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this Article is to critically analyze the root causes and justifications supporting the different treatment of information products that are embodied in a physical object from the ones that are not. The divide in the treatment of different forms of property is to a large extent arbitrary and we need to take a closer look at the profound effects that it may have on the regulation of information products, and the balance of powers between suppliers and recipients. Part II considers the effects of the overemphasis on a physical object in defining goods and services and the consequent rippling effects it has on enforcing sales and licenses. The Article will then delve into further illustrations of the emphasis on a physical object on the application of the first sale or exhaustion doctrine and on what exclusive copyright acts are involved in the commercialization of information products. Part III explains the root causes of the current overemphasis on the presence of a physical object through misconceptions of property and through the active role that suppliers play in shaping the nature of information products. I observe how the over emphasis on a physical progressively decreases recipients’ ownership powers and privileges to information products, thereby creating double standards that may lead to a legal and normative degradation. Part IV proposes to redefine personal tangible property by looking at what its essential attributes should be. In particular, the concept of ownership “as an organizing idea,” should help discern when personal property rights of recipients of information products should be recognized and enforced in conjunction with the need to constrain the effects that supplier contracts have on the personal property rights of recipients of information products.

Download

Share

COinS