Before introducing the criticism of intellectual property, we should again define the meaning of term. "Intellectual property" is problematically elastic. While it can be viewed from at least five different perspectives (Gollin, 2007), in this article, we'll consider three: dictionary, law, and scholars.

According to the definition of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), intellectual property now applies to creations of mind or invention; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce. Legally, intellectual property includes patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyright. Finally, scholars prefer an even broader view of intellectual property.  Scholars prefer a definition that includes individual creativity and socially adopted innovations, as well as collective knowledge (Gollin, 2007).

Since there are various definitions of intellectual property from varied perspectives, the notion is vulnerable to the most obvious criticism: IP is easily misunderstood.  A common second argument made about intellectual property is that the very nature of the property presents a challenge. Intellectual property usually refers to something intangible: information, ideas. Therefore, it is difficult to tell when such property has been misappropriated. 

As use of the Internet expands, a significant portion of new ideas is published online.  It is increasingly difficult to avoid the misuse of intellectual property, which begs the question: How severe is the problem? One begins to wonder about the true hazards in exceeding the photocopying limit, or occasionally sharing a recorded TV show.  Who hasn't copied and used a song without paying for it?  As Macmillan and Grady state in their article, Protecting Intellectual Property, the current state of technological sophistication makes it virtually impossible to prevent duplication of  “mind works."  Short of banning the sale of CD burners and copy machines, or restricting public access to the internet, little can be done to prevent all copyright infringement; instead, we should begin to develop creative ways to compensate creators for the use of their works.