freedom of ideas book review

Freedom of ideas,speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

the author of this book is having some ideas that need to be understodwithout biasness.

In the preface of the book ,the writer has generacially discussed some serious issues related to the restriction imposed upon innovation. the author has discussed the term “free” or “freedom” and their actual meanings and practical implementation. The examples are related to film making and music, the industries that are ,in this era are under the strict restrictions imposed by the lawmakers and thus a big hurdle in their growth.

ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
In the first part,the author has used the term “common” and has revealed its meanings in different context. For example according to the economists the term common are the resourses that are shared among the rivalaries or among single entities.
Under the term “layer”. The author divides it into sublayers. And concludes by different examples that layers can be controlled or they can be free. Internet is the biggest innovation of the century. And just because of internet the world has experienced is about to die. The internet is a mixure of both the controlled and the free content.

CRITICAL COMMENTS:

There sholud be freedom of ideas and speech but there is some boundaries taht should not be crossed over by the individuals.In countries where there is some law pertaining to the cpoy of internet content,then there should be some good reason to ban the internet content.like here in pakistan you tube is banned now and in dubai orkut is banned from using.It has been pretended by some, that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance.

By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.