There is an argument that the people’s rights over their unique ideas (intellectual properties) and inventions should not be allowed to stay with them for long; rather the world at large needs to get access to them freely as early as possible.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

The argument that people need to freely access ideas and avail of inventions as early as possible is of greater significance today. However, there may be a stipulated period of time set for different ideas and inventions. All the developers deserve due respect.  

All new ideas are for a better world. This is the thing that makes me stand for free access to intellectual properties. An idea becomes useful only when it benefits the needy, and the developers cannot expect all people to pay for an idea all the time. For example, almost all the literature that comes cheap to the world of reading today had once been the righted property of some writers somewhere.

Secondly, an invention may give way to another better one. For example, if a newly developed medicine is able to elongate the life of AIDS victims for a few more years, it must reach the AIDS victims at the earliest. There is no use if the rights of which is kept with the people behind it for ages. Who can predict that someone would not develop a permanent cure for AIDS?

Nonetheless, we should not ignore the efforts, time, money and material people happen to put in to develop something anew. All the inventions and ideas must get certain copyright period. This is the right of the brains behind the ideas and the world must look upon them for some time.

In short, access to copyrighted properties and ideas - after certain period of time - is the need of the hour, and the extent of time may vary as ideas do. Else, huge quantum of information might get held up, and the larger world may not benefit from it. It would be as if having no ideas at all.

Ajaypeesdoc

290 words