Hey guys Sithis here in this video i’m going to explain Why I believe we should Abolish intellectual property. The dictionary definition for Intellectual property is a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc. In other words it is When the state grants a monopoly privilege over an idea Allowing the restriction of others to copy that idea Using their own private property. [continue reading…]
As I’ve noted previously,1 Hans-Hermann Hoppe fully agrees with me that intellectual property law is completely unjust. In fact he was already solid on this as early as 1988, well before I was—I didn’t adopt my current views until I started looking into the issue around 1993 when I decided to become a patent attorney—(( My first publications on IP include Letter on Intellectual Property Rights, IOS Journal 5, no. 2 (June 1995), pp. 12-13; “Is Intellectual Property Legitimate?“, Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter 1 (Winter 1998): 3; republished in the Federalist Society’s Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter, vol. 3, Issue 3 (Winter 2000); and In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule, September 4, 2000, LewRockwell.com. )) when he appeared on a panel discussion with Hoppe, Rothbard, David Gordon, and Leland Yeager. In that discussion, there was the following exchange: [continue reading…]
Scientific journals have had enormous positive impact on the development of science, but in some ways, they are now hampering rather than enhancing open scientific discourse. After reviewing the history and current problems with journals, a new academic publishing model is proposed. It embraces open access and open rigorous peer review, it rewards reviewers for their important work with honoraria and public acknowledgement, and it allows scientists to publish their research in a timely and efficient manner without wasting valuable scientists’ time and resources. [continue reading…]
Most people do not understand that IP law is domestic only, which is why it is nonsensical to say that China is “stealing” western “IP”.1 Most countries have IP protection, primarily because of Western, primarily US, IP imperialism and bullying, mostly at the behest of Big Pharma (patents) and Hollywood and the music industry/RIAA (copyright) which have forced other countries to adopt American-style IP, to their detriment.2 But any country that chooses not to have IP rights and does not protect inventions and and artistic works does not violate others’ property rights, any more than insecure property rights in North Korea violates property rights in Texas. (IP supporters do not understand that this is a difference between real property rights and fake IP rights, since if your property right in material resources in a given jurisdiction are secure–in your home, in your body, in your car–then what other people do in some lawless regime simply cannot violate your property rights; yet they somehow think “China” can “steal” Western property rights by failing to enforce them locally. This alone shows that IP rights are not “similar to” real property rights. But let this pass.)3[continue reading…]
the consequence of that is that Capital will move from the low profit lines into the high profit lines that expands production in those lines in order to find buyers for the additional goods what has to happen to prices play come down when costs fallunless it’s a patented process or a secret technology in fairly short order prices are going to come down to correspondwith the lower costs and so if we had a wage rates broadly falling that would reduce costs and prices would decline commensurately when you have improvements in the productivity of Labor prices also decline and perhaps the most dramatic example in our own experience is the prices of a megabyte or a gigabyte of a hard drive space or of ram what’s happened to these things over the last 20 years prices diminish tremendously …
Artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) share some key similarities, such as uncertainty in predictions, processing a massive amount of data, and machine learning. Yet, they also differ from each other. This paper provides background information on how these two domains have evolved over time. It also highlights how Saudi Arabia’s IP system differs from those of other countries. Furthermore, this article explores the relationship between AI and IP and their application in copyright. This study is significant as it helps identify the challenges and opportunities that AI presents with respect to IP in terms of copyright. Finally, this article makes recommendations that will help protect both AI and IP.
All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…
In July 2010 I received the attached Word file via a service I used to use, YouSendIt. I just came across it in a search on my computer. I was unable to find the author at the time. I have confirmed it was Jim Cox, author of The Concise Guide To Economics. I never responded since I didn’t know who to respond to.
I have often pointed out that are are no good arguments for IP. They are all absurd.1 This includes principled/deontological/natural rights/”creationist” arguments for IP2 and empirical/consequentalist/utilitarian arguments. [continue reading…]
The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF) is dedicated to building public awareness of the manner in which so-called “intellectual property” (IP) laws and policies impede innovation, creativity, communication, learning, knowledge, emulation, and information sharing. We are for property rights, free markets, competition, commerce, cooperation, and the voluntary sharing of knowledge, and oppose IP laws, which systematically impede or hamper innovation. IP law should be completely and immediately abolished.
We provide news commentary and analysis and scholarly resources from our unique pro-property, pro-market, pro-innovation perspective.
Follow Us!