I didn’t hear any extensive discussion of argument for IP in their podcast, only (understandable) complaining about the effects of IP–such as the threat it poses to AI, hopes that it won’t damages AI too much, complaints about Youtube taking down videos because of copyright,…
Okay, maybe linguistically it has become verbicized, even though this practice gives rise to false implications (such as hypocrisy: Kinsella, if you don’t believe in copyright, why did you copyright your book?1 Answer: I don’t, as much as possible (see the CC-BY or CC0 notices on my websites and most publications), nor was Against Intellectual Property “copyrighted” by the Mises Institute [nor would it by hypocritical if it were]).2
Prompt: Are you sure it’s correct to use copyright as a verb as you did? It’s not as if the JB “is copyrighted” by the translator or publisher, like an invention is patented because the inventor filed a patent application. Don’t such works automatically receive copyright protection? [continue reading…]
The Mises Institute copyrights its material, and so it is itself a proponent of IP demonstrated in action.”); Authors: Don’t Make the Buddy Holly Mistake (from Stranger: “a CC license is still a copyright – the Mises Institute will use force on those who copy their books without making a reference to the Mises Institute. … The Mises Institute did not have to include an attribution clause in its copyright notice.”); Mises Institute: Do As They Say, Not As They Do? (Robert Wenzel). [↩]
N.b.: The copyright notice printed on this edition of my work is factually and legally incorrect: the copyright is held by me, not by the Mises Institute. And the copyright is 2001, the year the article was first published, not 2008. To be clear, and as indicated already in the footer to my Stephankinsella.com website, which hosts this work:
To the extent possible under law, N. Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to “Against Intellectual Property,” first published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies 15, no. 2 (Spring 2001). This work is published from: United States.
they [Mises Institute] didn’t copyright it. they put a copyright notice on it that was false. they said they have copyright; they do not, since it was not a work for hire and I never assigned it in writing. I have the copyright, and all my work it on stephankinsella.com with CC-BY applied to try to liberate it as much as the state will let me. It’s bizarre for pro-copyrgiht people to blame me for having copyright that their system imposes on me against my will. It’s like telling a black guy that he has no right to be against affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws since he is eligible to use these laws if he wants. why is it his fault if statist impose laws on society?”
I used to think Intellectual Property (IP) was valid. Why wouldn’t I? After all, my business school insisted patents were vitally necessary to incentivize production and innovation. Even Ayn Rand, my gateway to libertarianism, insisted IP was a moral necessity, saying:
“Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.”
Ash Navabi, former GMU econ grad student (see previous podcast discussion with him),1 now a law student at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, sent me this presentation he gave in his copyright class: “This Week in Copyright: Copywrong? The Legal & Economic Case for the Abolition of Intellectual Property” (pptx; pdf). Heroic!
In a recent podcast episode, Greenland, Guns, and Money, Richard Epstein predicts Trump’s use of tariffs under IEEPA might be nixed by the Supreme Court, and that he has suggested that if this happens he will find some other way to do it, but it’s not clear what.
I often rail against IP because it impedes innovation.1 As I wrote in one post,
Patent law distorts and impedes innovation. It makes us all poorer. There is no evidence that it does what the retarded Founders thought it would do—promote the progress of the useful arts (inventions)
… Patent law reduces innovation and impoverishes the human race. As I wrote elsewhere: [continue reading…]
I woke up this morning to my daily NY Times news brief email, only to find embedded therein this propaganda, the “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” campaign, which is “a project of the Human Artistry Campaign, a global coalition of more than 180 groups around the world supporting responsible, ethical AI.” The letter’s A and I in the slogan are highlighted in blue to drive the point home—this is about killing AI. It’s a group of artists and other copyright whores who want to shakedown AI tech companies with the threat of killing it with copyright. [continue reading…]
As a friend told me, “I saw this article, and thought you might either be amused or horrified as congress attempts to use copyright law to solve problems caused by … copyright law.”
Patent holders just hate any challenges to their state-granted patent monopolies.1 They want their IP rights to be treated like “property rights,”2 and never challenged, either administratively or in court, so that they can be “relied upon”3 and serve as more effective weapons to threaten and extort their victims.4 They also hate legislative proposals that would make it more difficult to engage in patent trolling,5 such as The Litigation Transparency Act of 20256 or the more recent bill proposed by Representative Daryl Issa, The Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding from Abuse Act.7[continue reading…]
US Inventor, INVENTOR RIGHTS RESOLUTION, which, in crayon, writes “The USPTO MUST NOT REVIEW AN ISSUED PATENT WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE INVENTOR.” [↩]
See also “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) [Audio: KOL445]. [↩]
Jeffrey Tucker’s recent article, “Small Steps Toward Medical Freedom,” The Epoch Times (Jan. 6, 2026) has several provocative “urgent priorities for U.S. medical-insurance reform”. Writes Tucker: [continue reading…]
These geniuses seem to attack capitalism and lack of competition, and identify some extensions or uses patent and copyright (intellectual property), but they do not condemn IP per se. No one can ever clearly see the problem or strike at the root. https://t.co/jPzMozEwFn…
“advocates for IP often cannot distinguish patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret from each other (and yet support them anyway)” The Problem with Intellectual Property, n.30
“IP has nothing to do with plagiarism or fraud. This is a common confusion, often deliberately and dishonestly spread by those with vested IP interests trying to defend IP law; or by people who are ignorant about the differences yet feel compelled to pontificate on this topic in public anyway.” Intellectual Property Discussion with Mark Skousen
Art doesn’t belong to the artist even before it’s public. Information is not ownable since it does not exist independently, it needs a substrate or carrier; it is just the way an underlying object is arranged or impatterned. The physical object itself which is impatterned is…
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!