Fikri Mülkiyetin Felsefi Eleştirisi: Neden Fikirler Üzerinde Özel Mülkiyet Kurulamamalı?

Year 2025, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 952 - 977, 23.12.2025

Yunus Emre Berber

https://doi.org/10.56701/shd.1777193

Abstract

Fikir ve sanat eserleri ya da buluşlar ve tasarımlar gibi fikri ürünlerin alım satımına dayalı muazzam endüstrilerin egemen olduğu tuhaf zamanlarda yaşıyoruz. Oysa fikirler üzerinde mülkiyet kurmak yalnızca çok yeni bir fenomen değil, ayrıca zayıf felsefi temellere dayanıyor. Fikri mülkiyetin meşruiyeti hakkındaki tartışmalar İnsan Hakları Evrensel Beyannamesi’nde kendisine yer bulmuş iki hakka indirgenerek çerçevelenebilir: Herkesin yeniliklerden yararlanmaya, eser ve buluş sahiplerinin ise ürünlerinden menfaat temin etmeye hakları vardır. Fikri mülkiyet bu iki “çatışan” hakkın uzlaştırılmasına hizmet ediyor görünür. Fakat gerçekte bir çözüm değil, bizatihi sorunun kendisidir. Eser ve buluş sahiplerinin menfaat temin etme gerekliliği mülkiyet hakkını zorunlu kılmadığından fikri mülkiyetin bilahare temellendirilmesi gerekir. Oysa emeğe dayalı hak ediş argümanları bu konuda yetersizdir. Fikri mülkiyet yalnızca Locke’un “herkese yeterince iyi ve çok bırakmak” şartını ihlal etmez, fikri ürünlerin onları ortaya çıkaranların kişisel emeğiyle bağı da birçok defa zayıf ve rastlantısaldır. Hegel’e (yanlış şekilde) dayanan kişilik teorisi de fikri mülkiyeti temellendirmekte başarısız olur. Çünkü fikirler kişilikle ne kadar yakından ilişkiliyse metalaştırılarak satılabilmelerinin kabulü o kadar zorlaşır. Faydacılık da pek fayda sağlamaz: Zira fikri mülkiyet yeni ürünleri teşvik ederek toplam faydayı arttırmanın tek yolu değildir, üstelik empirik kanıtlar fikri mülkiyetin bunun bir yolu olduğunu bile şüpheli kılar. Fikri mülkiyetin temellendirilmesinde yaşanan bu zorluğun sebebi fikri ürünlerin özel doğasıdır: Fiziki nesnelerin aksine fikirler ne kıttır (scarce) ne de tüketimlerinde rekabet (rivalry) mevcuttur. Bu sebeple fikirler üzerinde özel mülkiyet kurmak birçok soruna yol açarken, mevcut fikri mülkiyet rejiminin reddiyle mezkur her iki hakkı ahenkle hayata geçirmek mümkün olabilir.

Keywords

Fikri Mülkiyet , Telif Hakkı , John Locke , Hegel , Faydacılık

Philosophical Critique of Intellectual Property: Why Ideas Should Not Be Subject to Private Ownership?

Abstract

We live in strange times dominated by enormous industries built around the buying and selling of intellectual products, such as artistic works, inventions, and other forms of creative output. However, establishing ownership over ideas is not only a relatively recent phenomenon but also rests on weak philosophical foundations. Discussions on the legitimacy of intellectual property can be framed around two rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: everyone has the right to benefit from cultural, scientific, and artistic innovations, while authors and inventors have the right to benefit from their creations. Intellectual property ostensibly serves to reconcile these two "conflicting" rights, but in reality, it is not a solution—it is the problem itself. The necessity for creators to benefit from their works does not justify the establishment of property rights; therefore, this requires further justification. Yet, arguments based on labor-derived entitlement are insufficient. Intellectual property not only violates Locke's "enough and as good" proviso but also often has a weak and coincidental connection between intellectual products and the personal labor of their creators. The personality theory, mistakenly associated with Hegel, also fails to justify intellectual property. The closer an idea is linked to one's personality, the harder it becomes to accept its commodification. Utilitarianism also falls short, as intellectual property is not the only way to incentivize the creation of new products, and empirical evidence even casts doubt on its effectiveness. The reason behind all these difficulties lies in the unique nature of intellectual products: unlike physical objects, ideas are neither scarce nor rivalrous. Therefore, while establishing private ownership over ideas can lead to numerous issues, rejecting the current intellectual property regime may make it possible to realize both of the aforementioned rights in harmony.

Keywords

Intellectual Property , Copyright , John Locke , Hegel , Utilitarianism

References

• Aristoteles. Politika. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1993.
• Barro, Robert J. – Sala-i-Martin, Xaiver. Economic Growth. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2. Basım, 2004.
• Beauchamp, Christopher. Invented by Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015.
• Becker, Lawrence C. “The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition”. The Journal of Philosophy 73/18 (1976), 653-664.
• Becker, Lawrence C. “The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition”. The Journal of Philosophy 73/18 (1976), 653-664.
• Becker, Lawrence C. Property Rights: Philosophical Foundations. Oxford: Routledge, 2014.
• Berber, Emre. Şans Eşitlikçiliği ve Eleştirisi: Çağdaş Bir Dağıtıcı Adalet Anlayışının Felsefi Kritiği. Ankara: Adalet Yayınları, 2024.
• Bettig, Ronald V. “Critical Perspectives on the History and Philosophy of Copyright”. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 9/2 (1992), 131-155.
• Bettig, Ronald V. “Critical Perspectives on the History and Philosophy of Copyright”. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 9/2 (1992), 131-155.
• Blackstone, William. Commentaries on The Laws of England. 4 Cilt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Błaszczyk, Cezary. “Lockean Intellectual Property Refuted”. Scienza & Politica 32/63 (2020), 161-186.
• Błaszczyk, Cezary. “Lockean Intellectual Property Refuted”. Scienza & Politica 32/63 (2020), 161-186.
• Boldrin, Michele – Levine, David K. Entelektüel Tekele Karşı. İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık, 2010.
• Bruncken, Ernest. “The Philosophy of Copyright”. The Musical Quarterly 2/3 (1916), 477-496.
• Bruncken, Ernest. “The Philosophy of Copyright”. The Musical Quarterly 2/3 (1916), 477-496.
• Chang, Ha-Joon. “Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development: Historical Lessons and Emerging Issues”. Journal of Human Development 2/2 (2001), 287-309.
• Chang, Ha-Joon. “Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development: Historical Lessons and Emerging Issues”. Journal of Human Development 2/2 (2001), 287-309.
• Chang, Ha-Joon. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. London: Anthem Press, 2002.
• Conte, Sebastian J. “Are Intuitions Treated as Evidence? Cases from Political Philosophy”, Journal of Political Philosophy 30/4 (2022), 411-433.
• Copp, David, “Experiments, Intuitions, and Methodology in Moral and Political Theory”, Oxford Studies in Metaethics - 7, ed. Russ Shafer-Landau, 1-36, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
• Didin, Dilara Buket. “Fikri Mülkiyete Liberteryen Bakış: Deontolojik ve Sonuçsalcı Yaklaşımlar”. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi 114 (2024), 21-44.
• Didin, Dilara Buket. “Fikri Mülkiyete Liberteryen Bakış: Deontolojik ve Sonuçsalcı Yaklaşımlar”. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi 114 (2024), 21-44.
• Drahos, Peter. A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Acton: ANU eText, 2016.
• Fisher, William W. “Theories of Intellectual Property”. New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. ed. Stephen Munzer. 168-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Fisher, William W. “Theories of Intellectual Property”. New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. ed. Stephen Munzer. 168-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Goold, Patrick R – Simon, David A. “Lucky IP”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 42/3 (2022), 843-868.
• Goold, Patrick R – Simon, David A. “Lucky IP”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 42/3 (2022), 843-868.
• Gordon, Wendy J. “A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property”. The Yale Law Journal 102/7 (1993), 1533-1609.
• Gordon, Wendy J. “A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property”. The Yale Law Journal 102/7 (1993), 1533-1609.
• Handby, Edmund, “Assessing the Use of Intuitions in Contemporary Political Theory”. The Journal of Politics 84/3 (2022), 1595-1606.
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Hukuk Felsefesinin Prensipleri. İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar, 1991 (1821).
• Hettinger, Edwin C. "Justifying Intellectual Property”. Philosophy & Public Affairs 18/1 (1989), 31-52.
• Himma, Kenneth Einar. “The Justification of Intellectual Property: Contemporary Philosophical Disputes”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59/7 (2008), 1143-1161.
• Himma, Kenneth Einar. “The Justification of Intellectual Property: Contemporary Philosophical Disputes”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59/7 (2008), 1143-1161.
• Hirshleifer, Jack. “The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive Activity”. The American Economic Review 61/4 (1971), 561-574.
• Hirshleifer, Jack. “The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive Activity”. The American Economic Review 61/4 (1971), 561-574.
• Hughes, Justin. “The Philosophy of Intellectual Property”. Georgetown Law Journal 77 (1988), 288-367.
• Hughes, Justin. “The Philosophy of Intellectual Property”. Georgetown Law Journal 77 (1988), 288-367.
• Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983.
• Hurt, Robert M. – Schuchman, Robert M. “The Economic Rationale of Copyright”. The American Economic Review 56/1/2 (1966), 421-432.
• Hurt, Robert M. – Schuchman, Robert M. “The Economic Rationale of Copyright”. The American Economic Review 56/1/2 (1966), 421-432.
• Kinsella, Stephan. “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society”. Libertarian Papers 5/1 (2013), 1-44.
• Kinsella, Stephan. “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society”. Libertarian Papers 5/1 (2013), 1-44.
• Landes, William M. – Posner, Richard A. “An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law”. The Journal of Legal Studies 18/2 (1989), 325-363.
• Landes, William M. – Posner, Richard A. “An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law”. The Journal of Legal Studies 18/2 (1989), 325-363.
• Landes, William M. – Posner, Richard. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.
• Lemley, Mark A. “Property, Intellectual Property and Free Riding”. Texas Law Review 83 (2005), 1031-1076.
• Lemley, Mark A. “Property, Intellectual Property and Free Riding”. Texas Law Review 83 (2005), 1031-1076.
• Lerner, Josh. “The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues”. The American Economic Review 99/2 (2009), 343-348.
• Lerner, Josh. “The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues”. The American Economic Review 99/2 (2009), 343-348.
• Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.
• Levin, Richard C. vd. “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3 (1987), 783-831.
• Levin, Richard C. vd. “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3 (1987), 783-831.
• Locke, John. Yönetim Üzerine İkinci İnceleme. İstanbul: Ebabil Yayınları, 2012.
• Machlup, Fritz – Penrose, Edith. “The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century”. The Journal of Economic History 10/1 (1950), 1-29.
• Machlup, Fritz – Penrose, Edith. “The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century”. The Journal of Economic History 10/1 (1950), 1-29.
• Machlup, Fritz. An Economic Review of the Patent System. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1958.
• MacLeod, Christine – Nuvolari, Alessandro. “Inventive Activities, Patents and Early Industrialization. A Synthesis of Research Issues”. DRUID Working Papers 06-28 (2006),
• MacLeod, Christine – Nuvolari, Alessandro. “Inventive Activities, Patents and Early Industrialization. A Synthesis of Research Issues”. DRUID Working Papers 06-28 (2006),
• Macpherson, C. B. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.
• Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principle of Economics. New York: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001.
• Marx, Karl. Kapital. çev. Mehmet Selik – Nail Satlıgan. 3 Cilt. İstanbul: Yordam Kitap, 2011.
• Menell, Peter S. “Intellectual Property: General Theories”. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. 129–186. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2000.
• Menell, Peter S. “Intellectual Property: General Theories”. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. 129–186. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2000.
• Moore, Adam – Himma, Kenneth Einar. “Intellectual Property”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Sonbahar 2022 Edisyonu). Ed. Edward N. Zalta – Uri Nodelman. 06.08.2024. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/intellectual-property
• Moore, Adam – Himma, Kenneth Einar. “Intellectual Property”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Sonbahar 2022 Edisyonu). Ed. Edward N. Zalta – Uri Nodelman. 06.08.2024. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/intellectual-property
• Moser, Petra. “Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27/1 (2013), 23-44.
• Moser, Petra. “Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27/1 (2013), 23-44.
• Nozick, Robert. Anarşi, Devlet ve Ütopya. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2006.
• Palmer, Tom G. “Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects”. Information Ethics. Ed. Adam D. Moore. 123-168. University of Washington Press, 2005.
• Palmer, Tom G. “Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects”. Information Ethics. Ed. Adam D. Moore. 123-168. University of Washington Press, 2005.
• Plant, Arnold. “The Economic Aspects of Copyright in Books”. Economica 1/2 (1934), 167-195.
• Plant, Arnold. “The Economic Aspects of Copyright in Books”. Economica 1/2 (1934), 167-195.
• Priya, Kanu. “Intellectual Property and Hegelian Justification”. NUJS Law Review 1/2 (2008), 359-365.
• Priya, Kanu. “Intellectual Property and Hegelian Justification”. NUJS Law Review 1/2 (2008), 359-365.
• Radin, Margaret Jane. “Property and Personhood”. Stanford Law Review 34/5 (1982), 957-1015.
• Radin, Margaret Jane. “Property and Personhood”. Stanford Law Review 34/5 (1982), 957-1015.
• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Schiff, Eric. Industrialization Without National Patents. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.
• Schroeder, Jeanne L. “Unnatural Rights: Hegel and Intellectual Property”. University of Miami Law Review 60/4 (2006), 453-503.
• Schroeder, Jeanne L. “Unnatural Rights: Hegel and Intellectual Property”. University of Miami Law Review 60/4 (2006), 453-503.
• Schumpeter, Joseph A. Kapitalizm, Sosyalizm ve Demokrasi. 3 Cilt. İstanbul: Varlık Yayınevi, 1968.
• Sezgin, Fuat. İslâm'da Bilim ve Teknik. Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, 2007.
• Sterk, Stewart E. “Rhetoric and Reality in Copyright Law”. Michigan Law Review 94/5 (1996), 1197-1249.
• Sterk, Stewart E. “Rhetoric and Reality in Copyright Law”. Michigan Law Review 94/5 (1996), 1197-1249.
• Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (TBMM), “Başbakanlık Muamelât Genel Müdürlüğü Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı ve Millî Eğitim ve Adalet Komisyonları Raporları”. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi. Dönem IX, Cilt 10, Toplantı 2, Sıra Sayısı 289, Ankara: TBMM, 1951. https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/TUTANAK/TBMM/d09/c010/tbmm09010010.pdf
• Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (TBMM), “Başbakanlık Muamelât Genel Müdürlüğü Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı ve Millî Eğitim ve Adalet Komisyonları Raporları”. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi. Dönem IX, Cilt 10, Toplantı 2, Sıra Sayısı 289, Ankara: TBMM, 1951. https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/TUTANAK/TBMM/d09/c010/tbmm09010010.pdf
• Ugur, Mehmet. “Intellectual Property Protection, Innovation, and Knowledge Diffusion”. Elgar Encyclopedia on The Economics of Knowledge and Innovation. 264-270. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.
• Ugur, Mehmet. “Intellectual Property Protection, Innovation, and Knowledge Diffusion”. Elgar Encyclopedia on The Economics of Knowledge and Innovation. 264-270. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.
• Waldron, Jeremy. The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
• Weinreb, Lloyd L. “Copyright for Functional Expression”. Harvard Law Review 111/5 (1998), 1149-1254.
• Weinreb, Lloyd L. “Copyright for Functional Expression”. Harvard Law Review 111/5 (1998), 1149-1254.
• Wilson, M. Blake. “Personhood and Property in Hegel's Conception of Freedom”. Pólemos 1 (2019), 68-91.
• Wilson, M. Blake. “Personhood and Property in Hegel's Conception of Freedom”. Pólemos 1 (2019), 68-91.
• Yalçıntaş, Altuğ. Bırakınız Kopyalasınlar, Bırakınız Paylaşsınlar: Dijitalleşme ve İnternet Çağında Fikri Mülkiyet İlişkileri. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 2. Ed., 2019.