Creative economy: why and how private intellectual property can be limited

Creative economy:
why and how private intellectual property can be limited


Buzgalin A.V.

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor of the Faculty of Economics, Director of the Centre for Contemporary Marxist Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow buzgalin@mail.ru

ID of the Article:

Rubric: Economic sociology

For citation:

Buzgalin A.V. Creative economy: why and how private intellectual property can be limited. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2017. No 8. P. 20-30


 Full Text.


Abstract

The author shows that the main changes in the modern economy involve transformation of the creative — in its main content — work into a decisive factor for socio-economic progress with corresponding changes in the structure of social reproduction, and the formation of the potentially post-market space of economic relations. The arguments are compared which favor priority development of the private and universal intellectual property (the ownership of each for all). The author offfers his reflections about necessity and possibility for differentiating and interacting of two subspaces of creative economy sector: a) predominantly non-profit production of public goods, belonging to everyone, and d) commercial sphere based on the intellectual private property. The analysis proceeds from the assumption that we just socialize (reform) much, but do not change qualitatively the now dominant capitalist market relations.


Keywords
creative economy; creatosphere; public goods; the ownership by everybody of everything; private intellectual property; reform; late capitalism

References

Бузгалин А.В., Колганов А.И. Глобальный капитал. В 2-х тт. Т. 1. Методология: По ту сторону позитивизма, постмодернизма и экономического империализма (Маркс re-loaded). Изд. 3-е, испр. и доп. М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2015. [Buzgalin A.V., Kolganov A.I. (2015) Global’nyi kapital. 2 tt. T. 1. Global capital. In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Methodology: On the Other Side of Positivism, Postmodernism and Economic Imperialism (Marx Re-loaded). Moscow: LENAND. (In Russ.)]

Булавка Л.А. Советская культура как идеальное СССР // Булавка Л.А. (ред.) Культура. Власть. Социализм. Противоречия и вызовы культурных практик СССР. Луначарский и не только. М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2013. С. 51–93. [Bulavka L.A. (2013) Soviet culture as an ideal of the USSR. In: Bulavka L.A. (ed.) Culture. Power. Socialism. Contradictions and Challenges of Cultural Practices of the USSR. Lunacharsky and not only. Moscow: LENAND. P. 51–93. (In Russ.)]

Долженко Р.А., Бакаленко А.В. Краудсорсинг как инструмент мобилизации интеллектуальных ресурсов: опыт использования в Сбербанке России // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2016. Т. 14. № 3. С. 77–102. [Dolzhehko R.A., Bakalenko A.V. (2016) Crowdsourcing as an instrument of human intellectual resources involvement: The experience of Sberbank Russia. Russian Management Journal. Vol. 14. Issue 3: 77–102 (In Russ.)]

Маркс К. Капитал. Книга 1. Глава шестая. Результаты непосредственного процесса производства // Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Сочинения. 2-е изд. В 50 т. Т. 49. М.: Политиздат, 1974. С. 3–136. [Marx K. (1974) Capital. Book 1. Chapter six. Results of the direct process of production. In: Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. In 50 vols. Vol. 49. Moscow: Politizdat. P. 3–136 (In Russ.)]

Brabham D. (2013) Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Brabham D. (2010) Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: leveraging the collective intelligence of online communities for public good: PhD Thesis. Salt Late City: University of Utah. URL: http:// cdmbuntu.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/etd2/id/1190 (accessed 20.12.16).

Dolzhenko R.A., Ginieva S. (2016) Crowdsourcing as a tool of interaction between the population and the authorities. In: The 10th International days of statistics and economics. MELANDRIUM: 372–381.

Drahos P., Braithwaite J. (2004) Hegemony based on knowledge: the role of intellectual property. In: J. Chen and G. Walker (eds). Balancing Act: Law, Policy and Politics in Globalisation and Global Trade. Sydney: Federation Press: 204–223.

Drahos, P., Braithwaite J. (2002) Information Feudalism: Who Owns The Knowledge Economy. London: Earthscan Publications.

Feller J., Fitzgerald B., Hissam S., Lakhani K. (eds) (2007) Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press.

Stiglitz J. (2006a) Give prizes not patents. New Scientist. Sept. 16.

Stiglitz J.E. (2006b) Scrooge and intellectual property rights: A Medical prize fund could improve the financing of drug innovations. British Medical Journal. Vol. 333: 1279–1280. Doi: 10.1136/ bmj.39048.428380.80.

Content No 8, 2017