Patrick Goold

A person naturally owns the fruits of their intellectual labour; so goes the labour argument for intellectual property (IP). But what should happen when a creator gets ‘lucky’—such as the photographer who is in the right place at the right time or the scientist who accidentally discovers a new drug? IP law frequently awards ownership in such cases (what we call ‘Lucky IP’). Some argue, however, that the creators in such cases do not labour sufficiently to deserve ownership, and that Lucky IP merely demonstrates that IP law is not truly concerned about labour at all. Drawing on the philosophical literature of moral luck, we argue that this analysis is misguided. Nearly all intellectual creations involve some measure of luck and, in most cases, the creators still labour sufficiently to become the natural owners of their creations. Lucky IP does not, therefore, undermine the labour theory of IP law.

At the core of intellectual property (IP) law lies a fundamental question of political philosophy: can any argument justify the state’s grant of private property rights in intangibles? Scholars answering this question frequently resort to a single theory or value, such as efficiency, natural rights, or personality. But each justification offered faces substantial objections. To overcome the limitations of other theories, an emerging group of scholars, who we dub IP Pluralists, argue that IP can be justified using more than one theory or value. This Article is the first to critically evaluate the pluralist arguments for IP. In so doing, it highlights “IP’s pluralism puzzle”: surprisingly few scholars have explicitly articulated a pluralist argument for IP rights despite a reasonably common belief that one exists. Given these arguments face serious objections, the potential gap between belief in pluralism and reasoned argument against believing it presents a puzzle. The Article tries to explain why the puzzle exists and how it might be solved.

At the core of intellectual property (IP) law lies a fundamental question of political philosophy: can any argument justify the state’s grant of private property rights in intangibles? Scholars answering this question frequently resort to a single theory or value, such as efficiency, natural rights, or personality. But each justification offered faces substantial objections. To overcome the limitations of other theories, an emerging group of scholars, who we dub IP Pluralists, argue that IP can be justified using more than one theory or value. This Article is the first to critically evaluate the pluralist arguments for IP. In so doing, it highlights “IP’s pluralism puzzle”: surprisingly few scholars have explicitly articulated a pluralist argument for IP rights despite a reasonably common belief that one exists. Given these arguments face serious objections, the potential gap between belief in pluralism and reasoned argument against believing it presents a puzzle. The Article tries to explain why the puzzle exists and how it might be solved.

This volume reveals the wisdom we can learn from sailing, a sport that pits human skills against the elements, tests the mettle and is a rich source of valuable lessons in life. Unravels the philosophical mysteries behind one of the oldest organized human activities Features contributions from philosophers and academics as well as from sailors themselves Enriches appreciation of the sport by probing its meaning and value Brings to life the many applications of philosophy to sailing and the profound lessons it can teach us A thought-provoking read for sailors and philosophers alike.

Accidental infringement of copyright is a pervasive and largely ignored problem. In the twenty-first century, it has become increasingly easy to infringe copyright unintentionally. When such accidental infringement occurs, copyright law holds the user strictly liable. Prior literature has questioned whether the strict liability standard is normatively defensible. In particular, prior literature has asked whether the strict liability standard ought to be reformed for economic reasons. This Article examines the accidental infringement problem from a new perspective. It considers whether it is fair to hold copyright users strictly liable for accidental infringements of copyright. This Article argues that the strict liability standard is not fair because it results in copyright users being held liable for accidents for which they are not morally responsible. Using the moral philosophy literature on responsibility, this Article explores our intuitions surrounding copyright’s liability standard in order to better understand why strict liability in this context seems “harsh” and “inequitable.” In turn, this provides an argument for reforming copyright’s liability rule and adopting a negligence standard. This Article then argues that, within the United States, the proposed reform to copyright’s liability rule should be accomplished by modifications to the existing fair use doctrine.

Accidental infringement of copyright is a pervasive and largely ignored problem. In the twenty-first century, it has become increasingly easy to infringe copyright unintentionally. When such accidental infringement occurs, copyright law holds the user strictly liable. Prior literature has questioned whether the strict liability standard is normatively defensible. In particular, prior literature has asked whether the strict liability standard ought to be reformed for economic reasons. This Article examines the accidental infringement problem from a new perspective. It considers whether it is fair to hold copyright users strictly liable for accidental infringements of copyright. This Article argues that the strict liability standard is not fair because it results in copyright users being held liable for accidents for which they are not morally responsible. Using the moral philosophy literature on responsibility, this Article explores our intuitions surrounding copyright’s liability standard in order to better understand why strict liability in this context seems “harsh” and “inequitable.” In turn, this provides an argument for reforming copyright’s liability rule and adopting a negligence standard. This Article then argues that, within the United States, the proposed reform to copyright’s liability rule should be accomplished by modifications to the existing fair use doctrine.

Accidental infringement of copyright is a pervasive and largely ignored problem. In the twenty-first century, it has become increasingly easy to infringe copyright unintentionally. When such accidental infringement occurs, copyright law holds the user strictly liable. Prior literature has questioned whether the strict liability standard is normatively defensible. In particular, prior literature has asked whether the strict liability standard ought to be reformed for economic reasons. This Article examines the accidental infringement problem from a new perspective. It considers whether it is fair to hold copyright users strictly liable for accidental infringements of copyright. This Article argues that the strict liability standard is not fair because it results in copyright users being held liable for accidents for which they are not morally responsible. Using the moral philosophy literature on responsibility, this Article explores our intuitions surrounding copyright’s liability standard in order to better understand why strict liability in this context seems “harsh” and “inequitable.” In turn, this provides an argument for reforming copyright’s liability rule and adopting a negligence standard. This Article then argues that, within the United States, the proposed reform to copyright’s liability rule should be accomplished by modifications to the existing fair use doctrine.

This volume reveals the wisdom we can learn from sailing, a sport that pits human skills against the elements, tests the mettle and is a rich source of valuable lessons in life. Unravels the philosophical mysteries behind one of the oldest organized human activities Features contributions from philosophers and academics as well as from sailors themselves Enriches appreciation of the sport by probing its meaning and value Brings to life the many applications of philosophy to sailing and the profound lessons it can teach us A thought-provoking read for sailors and philosophers alike

This paper describes a strategy for defending some of the core claims of Christianity from evidentialist critics. The strategy is neither epistemological nor based on considerations of ‘proper basicality’. Indeed, this strategy, if successful, shows Christian faith to be notmerely permissible but ethically obligatory. It does so by taking seriously the claim that faith is a virtue (in the classical sense) and that a reflecting conscience will discover this. The paper also hopes to contribute to Kierkegaard scholarship by offering a new interpretation both of Sickness Unto Death and, by implication, of Kierkegaard’s general significance for philosophy of religion.

Søren Kierkegaard is an important thinker, especially important for those who wish to understand Christian faith. His elusive style, however, and certain distancing techniques make him particularly difficult to understand. The recent history of writings on Kierkegaard reveals a strong tendency to fall into one of two erroneous modes of interpretation. This essay is an attempt to rescue Kierkegaard both from muggings by ‘rigorous’ philosophers and from the morganatic embraces of Post-Modernists. It reviews the classical sources of each of these sorts of reading of Kierkegaard, exposes their mistakes, and suggests several appropriate principles of interpretation.

_ Modern Philosophy: An Anthology_ features a broad range of selections from important but seldom anthologized works in the philosophy of psychology, natural science, morality, politics and religion. Features a broad range of selections from works in the philosophy of psychology, natural science, morality, politics and religion. Places the modern thinkers in conversation with each other, including Leibniz on Descartes and Spinoza, Reid on Locke and Hume, and Kant on Hobbes. Offers important, but seldom anthologized primary works.