Give your interpretation about the "Proviso" that a person may legitimately acquire property rights by making his labor with resources held "in common" only if, after the acquisition, "there is enough" and as good left i

The Natural Right Theory emanates from the proposition that "a person who labors upon resources that are either un-owned or "held in common" has a natural property right to the fruits of his or her efforts and that the state has a duty to respect and enforce that natural right". This idea has been elaborated in the writings of John Locke and is also applicable to the subject of intellectual property, wherein the raw materials in the form of facts and concepts do seem in some sense to be "held in common" and where labor contributes substantially to the value of the finished product. Lockean property entitlements: Right to use without harm Right to transfer the property Right of exclusive usage of the property Personality theory finding place in the writings of Kant and Hegel is that private property rights are crucial to the satisfaction of some fundamental human needs. The law makers thus must create and allocate entitlements to resources in a way that best enables people to satisfy such needs. From this perspective, Intellectual Property Rights may be justified either on the ground that they shield from appropriation or modification artifacts through which authors and artists have expressed their "wills" (an activity thought central to "personhood"). Justin Hughes, taking inspiration from Hegel's Philosophy of Right, laid down following guidelines concerning the proper shape of an Intellectual Property regime: We should be more willing to accord legal protection to the fruits of highly expressive intellectual activities, such as the writing of novels, than to the fruits of less expressive activities, such as genetic research. Because a person's "persona"-- his "public image, including his physical features, mannerisms, and history" is an important "receptacle for personality." it deserves generous legal protection, despite the fact that ordinarily it does not result from labor. Authors and inventors should be permitted to earn respect, honor, admiration, and money from the public by selling or giving away copies of their works, but should not be permitted to surrender their right to prevent others from mutilating or misattributing their works. Intellectual property rights afford authors and inventors a measure of control over this risk. To put the point a different way, it is the moral claims that attach to personality, reputation, and the physical embodiments of these individual goods that justify legal rules covering damage to reputation and certain sorts of economic losses. Moreover, personality-based theories of intellectual property often appeal to other moral considerations. Hegel's personality-based justification of intellectual property rights included an incentive-based component as well-he asserts that protecting the sciences promotes them, benefiting society. Perhaps the best way to protect these intuitively attractive personality-based claims to intangible works is to adopt a more comprehensive system designed to promote progress and social utility.