Information, or ideas have slowly started to take place as another form of property, and its

price turned out way more valuable than expected. As technology grew more advanced, inventors

have transcended the physical limit of creation. Anything could be made anywhere, and the only

limit has become the barrier of imagination. Literally any idea could be made possible, and the

better it was the more valuable it became. In an age where one’s ideas became worth so much,

intellectual property rights became the official system to protect one’s ideas and creativity. But it

created a situation when one person could own an idea and use it for themselves. Intellectual

property rights (IPR) may have closed the gate to a branch of whole new inventions where only one

winner takes all.

Intellectual property rights may seem like a good way to encourage innovators to develop

new ideas, but it also has many side effects as a cost. A monopoly is naturally created with IPR, and

even if it isn’t just one company that dominates the market, an oligopoly system will form eventually.

This situation only becomes an obstacle for the economy to operate at full efficiency and

discourages competition, making it to against the market system. Smaller companies won’t even

have a chance to compete with them no matter how innovative and creative their ideas are.

Not only in economic aspects, IPR also discourages the development of new ideas. If an

idea ‘belongs’ to one individual, it takes away others’ chances of developing new ideas from it. Ideas

and inspirations don’t just spring up from nowhere, they are mostly created, influenced by others.

Also, this problem is worsened by the very long periods for IPR activation. Normally lasting 70 years
after the creator’s death, the idea is nearly fossilized by the time it’s finally publicized. And

companies really don’t die, so company owned ideas would mostly be dominated by a select few

individuals forever.

Noticing the many problems IPR causes, copyleft and creative commons movement was

introduced to solve them. They’re both movements that ask for sharing ideas with others while still

giving some credit to the original author. Many myths about copyleft movement tend to create a

negative view about it, but it’s not true in most cases. First, copyleft is totally different from illegal

piracy. Certain requirements set by the author must be qualified for any other people to use it, and

the difference from IPR is that the process became much simple. Also, the original author will still

be allowed to earn profits for their work and get credit too.

Many open source software examples are cases of copyleft, such as the world wide

web(www.). Also, copyleft creates a much more stable and competitive economic environment.

Allowing many small companies to compete, the quality of products will increase, and the

equilibrium will do so as well. It may take some time for the quality of new ideas to increase, but

the main effect of the movement is to create a society of free expression. People will be liberalized

from a heavy burden that kept them from developing new innovations, and the market will be more

active overall.

Yet, many people believe that creations and ideas won’t be as successful and useful with

copyleft due to the lack of financial incentives. This problem only matters when assuming that
financial benefits are the only source that encourages people. Of course profits can inspire people

greatly, but humans aren’t money making machines. Sometimes other incentives like pure curiosity,

passion or pride trumps any other financial profit. Many opponents also argue that freely expressed

ideas from one root will all be similar to each other and won’t be efficient. This claim is also true in

many situations, but the point of copyleft is to create an environment free of expression, rather

than the actual quality of new innovations and better ideas will naturally develop in such liberal

atmosphere.

Overall, the copyleft movement is improving the weaknesses of the original IPR system in

many different aspects, but there is one final question to consider. Why is humanity rushing so

much? The current period we live in doesn’t really seem desperate of new innovations that much.

Science and technology have developed in an amazing speed, but the resulting situation doesn’t

look so good. Development and urbanization took place due to amazing improving of technology,

but earth became polluted and ill as a result. Science has made incredible leaps too, now allowing

cloning, genetic remodeling and so much more. Now certain scientists even ask for patenting certain

human genes just because they found out the way to remodel it. Yet, mankind’s greed and arrogance

won’t stop there. Speeding up technology has shown its dark side, yet humans don’t even care

about the shadow looming over them, growing every moment. It’s necessary to think if we really

need more development and if we deserve it.