↓ Skip to main content

Mind the Gap! How the Digital Turn Upsets Intellectual Property

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Mind the Gap! How the Digital Turn Upsets Intellectual Property
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9996-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constantin Vică, Emanuel-Mihail Socaciu

Abstract

Intellectual property is one of the highly divisive issues in contemporary philosophical and political debates. The main objective of this paper is to explore some sources of tension between the formal rules of intellectual property (particularly copyright and patents) and the emerging informal norms of file sharing and open access in online environments. We look into the file sharing phenomena not only to illustrate the deepening gap between the two sets of norms, but to cast some doubt on the current regime of intellectual property as an adequate frame for the new type of interactions in online environments. Revisiting the classic Arrow-Demsetz debate about intellectual property and the epistemological issues involved in assessing institutions, we suggest that seeking out new institutional arrangements aligned with the norms-in-use seems to be a more promising strategy in the new technological setting than attempting to reinforce the current legal framework. Moreover, such a strategy is less prone to committing the so-called 'Nirvana fallacies'. As a secondary task, we try to cast some doubt on the two most common moral justifications of intellectual property as being able to ground the full extent of the current intellectual property regime.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Librarian 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 4 15%
Philosophy 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Linguistics 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,223,569
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#632
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,812
of 331,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.