C4SIF.org

As I’ve noted before, one of my future projects is to write a new book on IP from the ground up presenting a comprehensive case against IP based on all my previous writing, research, and arguments. (I am currently completing “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” a chapter for a forthcoming book,¹ and plan to start the new book after this is done.

One possible title for my book is Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property, a nod to Abbie Hoffman’s famous Steal This Book (1971). My title implicitly recognizes that copying a book is not stealing (and I will release it open and free online with no copyright protection), while Hoffman’s is hypocritical since, as a lefty, he presumably opposes capitalism and private property rights, all while publishing under copyright and for profit leading to disputes over royalties between Hoffman and two contributors to the book. [continue reading…]

1. Stephan Kinsella, “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Christoph Lütge & Marianne Thejls Ziegler, eds. (Springer, forthcoming 2025; Robert McGee, section ed.), update of “The Case Against Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics (Prof. Dr. Christoph Lütge, ed.; Springer, 2013) (chapter 68, in Part 18, “Property Rights: Material and Intellectual,” Robert McGee, section ed.) [↩]

Exciting news: the Academy of Public Health’s aptly-named Journal of the Academy of Public Health (https://x.com/RCJAPH), will be published by the non-profit RealClear Foundation. As explained in the opening editorial by Editor-in-Chief Martin Kulldorff, “The Rise and Fall of Scientific Journals and a Way Forward,” the journal is a “new publication model” that is “open access and open peer review.” Kulldorff is one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (as is another founding member, Jay Bhattcharya, who is on leave pending his nomination as director of the National Institutes of Health; the Board also includes Marty Makary, Donald Trump’s nominee to head the FDA).

Quite admirably, the journal will publish new articles totally free of copyright:

All articles in the Journal of the Academy of Public Heath [sic] are open access and freely available for anyone to read. They are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, permitting its broad reuse and distribution so long as appropriate source and author attributions are made.

[continue reading…]

Adapted from my Tweet.

Replying to a previous tweet, which stated: “All property is fundamentally intellectual.” This is the Objectivist bait and switch. All property involves the intellect–the mind, rationality, decisions, ideas. Sure. All property involves labor too. Why not say all property is labor? You need to start with a definition. What do you mean by property? [continue reading…]

Anna’s Blog argues that “Copyright reform is necessary for national security“. The argument is that American companies are hobbled in using copyright-protected works (such as that on Anna’s Archive) to train their AI LLM models, but Chinese firms have no such compunctions. Thus, US copyright law should be modified to make it easier for American AI companies to use this data to train their AIs—for example by reducing the copyright term and providing other safe harbors.

It’s a pretty flimsy and unprincipled argument, and somewhat nationalistic, and seems unaware of many other proposals for IP reform (and abolition), e.g. my own anti-IP work (e.g. You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property), proposals for reform such as “How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law” and those by others such as Tom Bell (Tom Bell on copyright reform; the Hayekian knowledge problem and copyright terms).

I received a couple questions from someone about IP and AI.

Question 1:

we could imagine an AI system without any censorship which can quote anything without any restrictions and provide access to any information that is available, anyone could create a website with any pirate content they want and it uses modern technologies allowing to provide this service without any way blocking it. How long IP could exist if there was a tool that completely ignores human made laws and lets information live freely?

[continue reading…]

I just recalled that my friend Greg years ago posted a nice broadside against patents “Ideas Are Not Property, On Dismantling IP,” in The Independent Political Report, back in June 2013. As he opens:

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously this past week that human genes may not be patented. That was a good decision. However those in support of this ruling are by and large hypocrites. They vociferously decried the negative consequences of upholding such patents (limiting research, higher costs, limited choice) but then fail to acknowledge these same deleterious consequences occur for ALL patents. It’s not like these bad things don’t occur for “legitimate” patents but do occur for “illegitimate” ones. Patents are the problem, not their “legitimacy.”

Read more>>

I’m writing “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” to appear in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Christoph Lütge & Marianne Thejls Ziegler, eds. (Springer, forthcoming 2025; Robert McGee, section ed.). (My “The Case Against Intellectual Property,” a different article, appeared in the first edition, Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics (Prof. Dr. Christoph Lütge, ed.; Springer, 2013) (chapter 68, in Part 18, “Property Rights: Material and Intellectual,” Robert McGee, section ed.).)

One of my footnotes is becoming unwieldy and I will have to pare it down, so I include the full version here, as I have trouble killing my darlings. [continue reading…]