This is included as ch. 5 of Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023).
***
Mises post; Archived comments below.
In my post The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism, I discussed the origins of the modern libertarian anti-IP movement. I’ve learned a lot more about the antecedents and history of all this from teaching the Mises Academy course “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics.” This history if very interesting. It seems to me we can mark at least four periods of significant and vigorous debate about IP that included strong arguments against IP, which I set forth below.
1. The Anti-patent movement from 1850–1873
Machlup1 lays out four historical periods leading to the modern patent systems of the world:
- Early History (pre–1624)
- Spread of the Patent System (1624–1850)
- Rise of the Anti-patent movement (1850–1873)
- Victory of the Patent Advocates (1873–1910)
Interestingly, many of the same argument, pro- and con, that were made then, have been made since. The most interesting of these four periods for our purposes is the third, 1850-1873. There is a huge amount of material from this period attacking IP—and from a free market perspective—that I have not been able to access or study in detail yet (but plan to). In this period, patents were attacked along with tariffs by free-traders, since both were seen to be obviously contrary to the free market. But with the depression following the Panic of 1873, there was a rise in nationalism and a reduced opposition to tariffs and protectionism. With the free trade cause on the ropes, its opposition to patents also became less relevant. The willingness to tolerate protectionism and other incursions into free markets and free trade opened the door to increased patent propaganda by special interest groups.
Thus, the anti-patent movement lost steam, and holdout nations such as Switzerland and the Netherlands finally gave in and reintroduced patent systems previously abolished (in the case of the Netherlands) or not yet adopted (Switzerland). Ever since, we have had a more or less universal, modern patent system in place in countries around the world.
2. The Debates among Individualist Anarchists the Late 1800s
As detailed by Wendy McElroy in works such as Copyright and Patent in Benjamin Tucker’s periodical Liberty and Contra Copyright, Again, early libertarian and proto-libertarians and anarchists in the late 1800s had vigorous debates on this topic. Lysander Spooner in The Law of Intellectual Property; Or an Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas (1855) had argued for IP but Benjamin Tucker deviated from Spooner, his mentor, and rejected IP. A vigorous debated ensued in the pages of Liberty, in the 1890s, with Tucker taking the most consistent anti-IP position, and others, such as Tak Kak (pen name for James L. Walker) and Victor Yarros, arguing for IP. Tucker’s arguments were powerful and influenced others later, such as McElroy.2
3. Mounting Libertarian IP Skepticism in the Pre-Internet Age
Free market economists had long voiced skepticism over the case for IP. This trend was continued, in the 20th century, by Arnold Plant (1934) and Fritz Machlup (1950s) (see the C4SIF Resources page).
In the latter half of the 20th century, more explicitly libertarian thinkers began to seriously doubt or completely deny the legitimacy of IP, including F.A. Hayek (1948), Murray Rothbard (1962, in MES), Wendy McElroy (1981, 1985), Samuel Edward Konkin III (“SEK3”) (1986), and Tom Palmer (1989/90) (again, see the C4SIF Resources page).3
4. Austro-Libertarian IP Abolitionism in the Digital/Internet Age
As Roderick Long notes in his 1995 article The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights (one of the first sallies of Phase 4),
Though never justified, copyright laws have probably not done too much damage to society so far. But in the Computer Age, they are now becoming increasingly costly shackles on human progress.
The digital information/Internet age made the problem of IP more obvious and serious, which led to our current modern resurgence of libertarian IP abolitionism, a position which seems to have grown and become dominant in the last 10 years, as I argue in “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism.”
The case against IP is today especially clear to Austrian-, anarchist-, and left-libertarians, and has intensified and grown significantly in recent years, and shows no sign of abating. The libertarian IP proponents are on the ropes and dwindling in numbers, or so it seems to me.
Thus, in addition to the younger libertarian IP opponents from Phase 3, above (McElroy and Palmer), there are today a large number of libertarian and free market/semi-libertarian opponents of IP, including: Roderick Long, Kinsella, Jeff Tucker, Boldrin and Levine, Julio Cole, Karl Fogel, Nina Paley, David Koepsell, Bertrand Lemmenicier, Sheldon Richman, Kevin Carson, Tom Bell (many of whom are members of the C4SIF’s advisory board), Butler Shaffer,4 and many others (again, see the C4SIF Resources page for link to many of these scholars’ work).
Let’s hope our numbers in the fourth phase continue to grow, culminating in Phase 5: IP Abolition.
{ 39 comments }
April 13, 2011 at 11:52 pm
-
“have been made sense.” should be “since”.
April 14, 2011 at 12:37 am
-
You forgot the 5th Phase.
Austrian Economics has shown its superiority over Conventional or Keynesian Economics by accurately predicting in advance what will happen and being right for the right reason.
To complete the loop here we would need a HHH Fantasy Island or a Sovereign Libertarian Cruise Boat where would could actually adopt these principles and show that it did indeed lead to a better more innovative and productive outcome.April 14, 2011 at 6:47 am
-
This post is about IP, not the business cycle. Phases 3 and 4 cover the Austro-Libertarians.
April 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
-
To argue that owners of ideas, composers of famous songs, authors of fantastic scientific or academic papers, inventors of important drug molecules, should be coerced, should be forced and arm-twisted, to share their inventions for free to other people, is plain dictatorship. How can such attitude be considered as advocating individual liberty?
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-intellectual-property-abolition.htmlApril 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm
-
Who argues that nonsense? To argue, that people should be forced not to act with their property as they see fit just because some “scientist” had this precious idea first and would like that no one used it in his “way” – that is dictatorship. Owning ideas is owning other people. And this is argued by most of the IP proponents. Or at least, it’s a logical conclusion of their ideas.
April 18, 2011 at 3:26 pm
-
They aren’t forced to share it. If they want to keep it secret, fine. but if they decide to make it public–for example by selling it–then they cannot whine when others use the information.
-
By forcing the abolition of IP, proponents are forcing the sharing of ideas that some idea owners may not be happy to do without some compensation or even citation. Owners of idea — a song composition, a picture or cartoon, a new drug molecule, etc. — decide whether they want their ideas to be shared for free with the rest of humanity, not some ideologues or government bureaucrats.
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-intellectual-property-abolition-part.html
April 18, 2011 at 3:41 pm
-
Kinsella offers two choices:
Keep the information a secret, thus depriving all of us to access; OR…
Share the information on the condition that by so doing, it enters the public domain, thus depriving authors and inventors of their economic rights to their own production.
While it is true that no one is advocating coercion either way, it seems these solutions to the public choice issues creates the worst of both worlds; no access or no market.
April 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm
-
Hey dicknose, there’s a third option: the creator can attempt to extract value from his creation while keeping the inner workings secret. Ever heard of Coke or McDonald’s?
-
KFC, motherfucker!
-
To the two delightful geniuses named Ric*
Yes, regarding a recipe for Coke, in which the object of secrecy is the recipe itself (tradesecret), while the product is a drink, which can be consumed without knowing the recipe. You buy the Coke drink, not the recipe.
What if the product IS the recipe (i.e. a novel or technical manual) itself? Explain to me how you would extract value from it’s publication AND keep it a secret?
Didn’t think of that? I’m not surprised…
April 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm
-
People tend to innovate in places where people are free to act. Sometimes people solve problems because they need the problem solved. The value is that the problem is now solved. People can (and do) become famous for being problem solvers and can be hired as consultants and teachers. I EXPECT that in a free society the price structure would change dramatically.
In the case of most things simply having the recipe doesn’t make you a master chef. Having a blue print does not make you a master craftsman, having a piece of source code does not make you a system’s administrator. Understanding is the natural barrier to information distribution. Why not push the limits and see what we end up with?
The Internet has allowed virtually anyone to publish, but for free. I read this article without paying Stephan for it. Has innovation been killed by the Internet? Is Stephan going to stop writing because nobody is paying him for this article? Is it fair that he is being “coerced” to write free articles to get attention to the classes he teaches?
-
“Share the information on the condition that by so doing, it enters the public domain, thus depriving authors and inventors of their economic rights to their own production.
While it is true that no one is advocating coercion either way,”
This is incoherent. If these authors are deprived of their “rights”, as you claim, then there *is* coercion involved. Which is it, coercion or not? (Not that I should expect a coherent response here.)
April 19, 2011 at 11:31 am
-
That’s so horrible, engaging customers exposes oneself to competition! You can’t have that! They should ban it!
-
Can you define competition? I want to make sure you are not contradicting yourself.
-
Yes, I can define competition. It is a description of a market state where the existence of substitutes is legal.
-
When you say competition is a good thing, do you mean monopoly is a bad thing becasue monopoly means no competition?
So, when you say monopoly, you mean property monopoly, or economic (pricing) monopoly, or is there no difference?
-
Wildberry,
When you say competition is a good thing…
For simplicity, let’s just assume I really said that.
do you mean monopoly is a bad thing becasue monopoly means no competition?
Again, let’s just assume that I do.
So, when you say monopoly, you mean property monopoly, or economic (pricing) monopoly, or is there no difference?
When I say monopoly, I mean “mutually inexclusive states are merged under one label and declared illegal unless performed by a specific actor, the monopoly holder”. I’m fairly sure I already mentioned something like this in the past.
-
Thanks, that really cleared things up (***exagerated eye roll***)
-
If anything is unclear to you, feel free to ask for a clarification. I vaguely recall mentioning an example of “blowpple” some time ago, but I think you weren’t participating in that debate. Just google for blowpple.
-
@Richard Cheese April 18, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Another Ric*? Are you guys all related?
This is incoherent. If these authors are deprived of their “rights”, as you claim, then there *is* coercion involved. Which is it, coercion or not? (Not that I should expect a coherent response here.)
Kinsella said this here:
Stephan Kinsella April 18, 2011 at 3:26 pmThey aren’t forced to share it. If they want to keep it secret, fine. but if they decide to make it public–for example by selling it–then they cannot whine when others use the information.
Authors aren’t coerced, in his world, to share their work (although this the purpose for which it was produced!). And they can’t whine (coerce others). No coercion for him, and no soup for you!
That is the way Kinsella sees it, apparently. Everyone is free to do nothing, since doing something is non-productive for the one doing it.
Despite his protestations to the contrary, this is exactly the purpose for which property rights, a human device, are employed; to prevent producers from producing, for the most part, for external economies.Not that I would expect you or Kinsella to be concerned about that.
-
All natural rights are extensions of the self ownership principle. This principle can not be extended to include the mind of others. Land is scarce in the ability for people to manage it effectively, thus competition for management can be limited in a moral way. Information is scarce in the ability for people to think and share. People need the freedom to think and share. This is a discovery, not an invention.
External economies are created when government makes an exception for a person to violate property rights without consequence. External economies are not create through the exploitation of property rights, but perversion through fiat.
-
Abolishing IP won’t prevent producers from producing. Reality debunks such inane claims by thousands of examples. I hope I don’t need it to mention… Take for example all the open source and creative commons music. Take for example free books by many authors who profit from donations. Jeez.
-
@Edgaras April 19, 2011 at 4:26 am
I don’t think the issue is music and new authors so much as things like and say, historical works or technical manuals, or new medical devices. Also, the presence of IP means that authors and musicians can include free access as part of their marketing strategy.
I’m aware that the Grateful Dead encouraged pirate taping. Turned out it was a smart move. That didn’t stop them from pressing LP’s, though and selling them.
Do you have any other examples of where abolishing IP didn’t prevent producers for producing for external economies? How are you so sure of your position? Reality includes IP, last time I looked.
-
I don’t understand your last paragraph. It’s burden on you to prove, that without IP there would be lack of production in one or the other sphere (now you jumped to medical devices and technical manuals, how convenient). Reality is that many people now illegitimately profit from legal monopolies so your sentence that “reality includes IP” is non-argument, because reality includes many things, crimes for example, but that doesn’t make them any more just or legitimate just because they happen to exist in reality
Yes, it may be a fact, that some producers, especially those aggressive ones (multi-corporations), who currently are profiting from monopolies would go out of business (or at least would lose huge amount of profit) due to abolition of IP. But who cares, if there is a demand for something, someone, seeking for a profit will surely produce it to gain money from possible consumers. Slavers also went out of business after abolition of slavery, so what. I don’t care about illegitimate profits where one side has legal monopoly granted by the state and coercively excludes competitors.
-
@Edgaras April 19, 2011 at 10:53 am
… your sentence that “reality includes IP” is non-argument, because reality includes many things, crimes for example, but that doesn’t make them any more just or legitimate just because they happen to exist in reality
I am not saying that crime is justified, even though it exists. Are you saying that IP equates to crime? That’s like saying “legal theft”, like Carden said on Freedom Watch. It can’t be legal and theft. It might be illegitimate appropriation, though…
I think you are making a huge assumption without actually analyzing the situation. We are talking about IP, not loaves of bread. I used different examples than you to illustrate that point. The problem with information is that it is easily copied, raising the free-rider problem. Producing for external economies is counter-productive. One must conclude that given a choice, producers won’t do it. If they don’t do it, what is it that you have to use? It looks that leads backwards in time to where the most complexity that society could support was cottage industries. If there is no incentive to innovate, why would you assume that capital would be allocated to do it?
Don’t confuse the concept of a corporation, an association of many people for some specific business purpose, with mercantilism, where special interests capture the political means for their private benefit. Mercantilism is always bad. Corporations are not always bad. Pooling capital is not always bad.
Slavery went out of business because it was morally and economically bankrupt. Going out of a morally just and profitable business is the result of harmful interventionism. Isn’t there a difference?
-
Individuals can innovate and solve problems that need to be solved. Only large corporations with teams of lawyers and lobbyists can keep up with a law that decides what problems exist and how they must be solved without basis in reality, but alternatives are illegal.
We have a “middle ground” system.
-
I am saying, that IP is as illegitimate as any crime invading other peoples property, but sure, rape or murder is probably worse than some legal monopoly on idea, but then again, that’s just my subjective opinion on the matter. I remember one guy telling me that rape is not a crime… go figure
Free rider problem? But in a world, where it is even impossible not to copy (what has been seen can not be unseen, what has been heard can not be unheard), everyone must be a free rider. Yet again you assert, that producers would stop producing. Even if it did (that begs the question), I actually don’t care what some other people going to do. I know I WILL PRODUCE stuff, not matter there is IP or not.. As I mentioned, if people need something, even something intangible, other people could easily provide (whole new market, whole new field for business). There is no need to grant them legal monopolies to exclude others, competition is beneficial to consumers. Why you keep ignoring them and talking about producers? You surely can’t talk about all of them, maybe of those, who currently gain huge profits from such monopolies and probably would be worse off without them (I don’t deny that). But I don’t care about them. See my first sentence in this post for a reason why.
But the point is that IP is NOT morally just. Even if you could prove (which you didn’t) that it is economically good, it won’t be ever morally good or just. Because, as I said before, owning ideas is owning other people and other peoples justly acquired property. It’s almost by definition a type of slavery to an author of an “original idea” or pattern.
April 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm
-
Wildberry – I got round to reading that Demsetz paper, some great stuff in it.
Edgaras you say “IP is as illegitimate as any crime invading other peoples property”
Can I ask you a question. If we lived in ancap world except that there was an Evil Empire state that had a 2 laws only which were
1) one against blackmail
2) another that made it illegal to defend yourself during a rape or tell anyone about it afterwhat would you say is the difference between these two? Is there one? They are both “invading” you seem to think, but while the consequences of them in any given situation are clearly very different, do you see any theoretical difference between these two laws? Or do they both suffer at root from the same fundamental problem ie. that they prevent you from doing as you wish with your own property.
-
Kid Salami,Got another one for you.
The David Friedman book is fantastic and completely relevant to this topic. It is a take off and expansion of Coase and others.
Also, the lecture by Adam Mossoff reviewed by Kinsella is a very interesting speech.
Regards,
-
@ Edgaras April 19, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Let’s say there is a town with no hotels. Someone builds a hotel and travelers are happy to rent out the rooms.
Someone comes along and says a monopoly in hotels is morally wrong, that there should be competition. But instead of going to the effort of building another hotel to compete with this one, they just start renting out rooms on their own to this hotel. They all compete with each other by lowering the price, and pretty soon, rooms are free.
The owner objects, but others claim that if he doesn’t want people to stay in his hotel, he can just lock the doors. But if he is not going to lock the doors and continues to let people in, then everyone is entitled to compete with him in renting out rooms in this hotel, so he should stop whining because he made his choice; either keep it for yourself, or let everyone have access. Those are the choices.
Is that what you mean by competition?
April 20, 2011 at 8:50 am
-
You really think your analogy works here, Wildberry? I mean, seriously, where have you been for past 2 or so years? As if you came up with something original when in fact you just repeat same old confusion with physical, material property and intangible imaginary property (aka IP). Should I now debunk for 10th time your analogy or just skip your post as yet another non-argument?
Hotel is private tangible property. IP is not private tangible property.
My use of hotel room deprives you from using it at the same time. My using “your” idea doesn’t have such consequences, there is no trespassing or violence or coercion involved.So if someone trespasses owners property and uses it in his own way without the permission of the owner of the hotel, then such person is a violator, a criminal. As if it is first time you heard this debunking and yet you still repeat it. It won’t come true just because you repeat it for hundreds of times for 2 or so years. Physical property has clear visible boundaries etc. It is scarce. It is not infinite. Copying of such room is costly, because one has to build it from scratch.
Do you purposefully do this (make such nonsensical analogies) or you really that crazy (used “crazy” instead of “retarded” which you could find insulting, but after this point I feel really lack of empathy for you) so that you don’t see the difference between physical and imaginary property?
What you are talking about is not a competition, it’s violence. Competition is when people use their own legitimately acquired goods to compete with each other. Your case is just a bizarre and dishonest attempt to confuse the matters as if I were a newbie in this whole debate and won’t notice such tactics perpetuating in this (and other) discussion over IP for more than 2 years.
(….)
-
You really think your analogy works here, Wildberry? I mean, seriously, where have you been for past 2 or so years? As if you came up with something original when in fact you just repeat same old confusion with physical, material property and intangible imaginary property (aka IP). Should I now debunk for 10th time your analogy or just skip your post as yet another non-argument?Hotel is private tangible property. IP is not private tangible property.
My use of hotel room deprives you from using it at the same time. My using “your” idea doesn’t have such consequences, there is no trespassing or violence or coercion involved.So if someone trespasses owners property and uses it in his own way without the permission of the owner of the hotel, then such person is a violator, a criminal. As if it is first time you heard this debunking and yet you still repeat it. It won’t come true just because you repeat it for hundreds of times for 2 or so years. Physical property has clear visible boundaries etc. It is scarce. It is not infinite. Copying of such room is costly, because one has to build it from scratch.Do you purposefully do this (make such nonsensical analogies) or you really that crazy (used “crazy” instead of “retarded” which you could find insulting, but after this point I feel really lack of empathy for you) so that you don’t see the difference between physical and imaginary property?
What you are talking about is not a competition, it’s violence. Competition is when people use their own legitimately acquired goods to compete with each other. Your case is just a bizarre and dishonest attempt to confuse the matters as if I were a newbie in this whole debate and won’t notice such tactics perpetuating in this (and other) discussion over IP for more than 2 years.
(I have issues with posting in mises blogs, had to use proxy, wtf)
-
@Edgaras April 20, 2011 at 8:55 am
You really think your analogy works here, Wildberry? I mean, seriously, where have you been for past 2 or so years? As if you came up with something original when in fact you just repeat same old confusion with physical, material property and intangible imaginary property (aka IP). Should I now debunk for 10th time your analogy or just skip your post as yet another non-argument? Hotel is private tangible property. IP is not private tangible property.
Sorry I didn’t properly catalogue your previous posts. I was just wondering if you could think past your own ideology long enough to consider the issue; apparently not.
I realize that you define property as “physical material”, this being the only qualifying criteria under which the concept of property rights can exist. If you assume this premise, you are right, the analogy makes no sense.
If you consider, however that property is a human device, and therefore has no such exclusionary criteria, as I assert, then you can see that other problems arise with denying property rights in IP, such as externalities caused by production without property right to the products produced.
Instead, you merely settle for the Rothbard/Hoppe/Kinsella rule that only “physically rivalrous goods” can ever be treated as property, without ever facing the issue of externalities which are created as a result. That is the point of the analogy. This is the point of Mises’s admonition.
Have you ever considered why we don’t handle IP exclusively through contracts? Certainly many other forms of property rights are handled that way. Why have any property rights at all? Certainly things like trespassing can be handled by contracts with everyone who is likely to encounter your land. If you entered a contract with each of them, why would you even need a concept of property rights that didn’t depend on privity of contract? Wouldn’t that achieve the same goal of avoidance of conflict?
I know the anti-IP arguments backwards and forwards by now, so don’t be so arrogant to assume that I’m just ignorant. What I don’t know, is you. So I was curious where you stood. I get it now. Another ideologue in the anti-IP camp who is so attached to the exclusionary rule that you cannot consider the economic consequences of your position. So you simply follow your rule and have “faith” that the free market will adjust to the alternative world view you advocate.
Well, I agree, it will. The question is will such a policy produce the outcomes you expect? That is the subject matter of economics, not natural property rights.
Think about what you are saying: you are claiming that by excluding IP in your consideration of the economic rights of the trading parties, you believe the issue of externalities can be solved by simply following the title of the paper upon which it is written, as if that is the critical distinction here.
My use of hotel room deprives you from using it at the same time. My using “your” idea doesn’t have such consequences, there is no trespassing or violence or coercion involved.
All analogies break down at some point. Why? Because they are analogies. Do you think I don’t get the difference between a hotel and a novel? My question is, can you grasp the meaning of the analogy that I intended to convey?
By not respecting the property rights of the hotel owner, you get an outcome where ownership has no meaning, and a shortage of hotels. I cannot actually use IP to illustrate this to you, because your ideology denies the first premise, that it can be treated as property at all. This is how you avoid the problem.
Yet you will agree that an author owns the original manuscript. I am posing the economic issue of the alternatives that Kinsella believes are available; secrecy, or gratuity.
Are you for real? So if someone trespasses owners property and uses it in his own way without the permission of the owner of the hotel, then such person is a violator, a criminal.
Only if trespassing is a crime, and that can occur only if the hotel owner has property rights. Dismiss his property rights and there is no longer a trespassing problem to solve. Magic!
Physical property has clear visible boundaries etc. It is scarce. It is not infinite.
You are conflating two different issues. First, are you saying that a book does not have clear, visible boundaries. Are you saying that when you are copying a book in some way, you really can’t tell where the boundaries of the book are?
Second, you are claiming ideas are free, and then equivocating ideas with IP. Ideas are inexhaustible in their service. I get that. Hotels cannot be copied unless you invest the capital in producing one. But an original manuscript cannot be copied unless you have an original to copy from. To create that original, you must invest capital in producing it. Are you actually claiming that you can’t distinguish an idea for a novel from the actual novel itself?
Ideas have always had the characteristic of being inexhaustible AND of being in the public domain. Books have not. In the 1500’s, copying a book was a very capital intensive endeavor. Their service was NOT inexhaustible. But the endeavor of WRITING a book has not changed much. It still requires the intellectual endeavor and the capital of a human to accomplish. Can you see a distinction? Well, IP laws can, and I can. That is why ideas are excluded from the subject matter of IP. Despite the inexhaustible service of a novel, it is not equivalent to simply “an idea”.
Copying of such room is costly, because one has to build it from scratch. Do you purposefully do this (make such nonsensical analogies) or you really that crazy (used “crazy” instead of “retarded” which you could find insulting, but after this point I feel really lack of empathy for you) so that you don’t see the difference between physical and imaginary property?
Look, if I am not crazy or retarded, then there must be another explanation for your failure to acknowledge the content and meaning of what I am communicating. Could it be the ideologically induced blindness to the facts?
Of course I see the difference. I am asking, IS THAT THE ONLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE? Does the distinction you make end the possible universe of distinctions that can be made about the difference between a book and the paper it is written on? Indeed, I would be crazy to not understand the difference. The challenge I am offering is, how can what I’m saying make sense, even if you ultimately disagree? Can you restate my position as easily as I restate yours?
Your position results in a conclusion that is analogous to the following: I am free to claim ownership to my hotel as long as I don’t rent rooms. By analogy, an author is free to claim ownership to his manuscript as long as he doesn’t share it with anyone. Get it?
What you are talking about is not a competition, it’s violence.
As I said, it is only violence if the hotel owner’s rights are violated. If he has no rights, there is no violence. You can’t have it both ways. If the author has no rights, then trying to assert them is violence, and your use of his work is non-violence. It is simply a condition that follows from your assumptions: the author has no rights, but the hotel owner does.
Competition is when people use their own legitimately acquired goods to compete with each other.
In that case, the author, having produced a manuscript with his own legitimately acquired goods wishes to complete with all other such authors. As a consumer you can do what you will. A hotel owner wishes to compete with all other hotels. The consumer can choose which one, or none, but he cannot simply move into vacant rooms, even if he has the ability to do so. Why? Because there is utility in recognizing property rights in privately owned property; that device gets us where we want to go.
Your case is just a bizarre and dishonest attempt to confuse the matters as if I were a newbie in this whole debate and won’t notice such tactics perpetuating in this (and other) discussion over IP for more than 2 years.
Look at the language you must use. Rather than make an honest effort to understand how what I’m saying COULD be true, you depend on an assumption that I and the majority of others, are simply insane or mentally impaired. Is it completely unfathomable to you that most people hold a belief that an original producer of an good that is easily copied, is entitled to protection of his economic rights consistent with the principles of private property rights, and the private ownership of the means of production, in order to prevent the negative consequences of a producer who is producing, for the most part, for external economies.
-
Wildberry,
I realize that you define property as “physical material”, this being the only qualifying criteria under which the concept of property rights can exist.
Kindly stop repeating the same misinterpretation over and over again. You have been told repeatedly where your errors are, yet to continue to ignore anything that would push you to provide any clarity.
It’s pathetic.
-
@Edgaras April 20, 2011 at 8:55 am
Did you say this or did I?
“…you just repeat same old confusion with physical, material property and intangible imaginary property (aka IP).?
Peter seems confused.
July 18, 2011 at 11:25 am
-
Some thoughts: Ever listen to music from some medium and figure out how to play it on an instrument? Some instruments even allow for the ability to play the exact same “music” using differing fingerings. So, I could listen to a song on the radio (I think they still exist) and interpret how to play said song on my guitar (for example.) I could even do this in such a way that I’m using completely different fingerings…I could even somewhat (almost exactly) mimic these sounds on several different instruments. I could even PLAY these songs for people WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD THEM, and they may think it’s my own creation (and perhaps I don’t even tell them whether it is or not. Personally, I would care less and mention where I heard it.) Perhaps, I locally distribute this song. People are enjoying this music that would have otherwise been disallowed from doing so if certain rules were followed.
The reason why I bother with this kind of simplified example is that I want to point out what IP really does on the other side of things: it DEPRIVES those who lack the means to obtain the original knowledge (in whatever form) because the original is less available (or more costly due to monopolistic powers) in its original form. IP is controlled deprivation of “ideas”.
If the original author wishes to create an “intellectual” product that is hard to mimic, they are free to do so. Of course, they will be spending time doing so. This will increase the cost of producing their product. That’s up to them to determine whether it benefits them, or it might be more profitable if their resources are spent elsewhere.
One might argue that society as a whole is far worse for IP existing. One would have to think of every aspect of it to do so. Think of who benefits from having ideas copied – those who come into contact with the idea (in whatever form) who would not have otherwise been able to so and gain some benefit from the occurrence (which might be small or large, personal or beneficial for several members of society. I won’t get into how personal benefits tend to be good for society as as whole, but I’m sure that isn’t lost on many here. End of digression.) Beyond this, one might argue that the fame of spreading the original idea through copies might offer DIFFERENT benefits to the original author. Of course, the original author will always have the benefit of being the first to enter the market with said new idea. Why does there need to be a residual benefit? Is there really less incentive to have a new idea? One could argue that without residual benefits, THE INITIAL IDEA BECOMES MORE VALUABLE AT CREATION AND INITIAL DISTRIBUTION.
Of course, the market isn’t ignorant to this, is it? Do authors of good books not tend to get paid upfront to write their NEXT good book? Do bands that create good music not tend to get paid (or supported) upfront to write their NEXT good music? Do authors of good programs not find employment to write their NEXT good program?
At best, IP only spreads the economic gains of an initial idea out of over time. One could argue that even in this best case scenario, the initial idea would be worth more at inception if part of its profits weren’t trickling out over time. Yes, there’s the danger that the idea could be mimicked, more easily competed with or have its value become extinct, but does that not offer up the incentive for the originator to CREATE A NEW IDEA? Call me crazy, but it sure seems that IP rights stagnate new idea creation, not the other way around. We delay the next new idea, improvement in the idea, improvement in some small part of the idea, etc. by protecting the prime idea from competition/reproduction/reverse engineering, etc. Net gain for the few, net loss for the many. Sounds familiar? The only force being used here is FORCE to protect the IDEA from reproduction/recreation. We won’t even get into the simultaneous originator problem, or what of the person who has 75% of the idea figured out, but falls short to someone else who gets to 100% first? What if they hit 100% a day later? A week later? Surely, they could find a way to profit from their idea IN THEIR PART OF THE WORLD before the initial creator can get there? Stopping this secondary creator from doing so will actually delay the spread of the idea. (And yes, I realize that spreading ideas has become a lot easier.) Regardless, penalizing the second man and those around him well after the fact (which is most likely to happen), seems like far more force being used than any other scenario one could come up with that extends from the harm of the creator. I’d gladly welcome a well-thought argument to that effect if there is one.
Please forgive any errors I may have made in the construction above. Thanks in advance!
,
Mitch
- Fritz Machlup, U.S. Senate Subcommittee On Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights, An Economic Review of the Patent System, 85th Cong., 2nd Session, 1958, Study No. 15 [↩]
- Update: see Molinari on IP; Proudhon: For Intellectual Monopoly. [↩]
- Update: for more on McElroy’s role in developing the anti-IP case, see McElroy: “On the Subject of Intellectual Property” (1981), and my article “The Great IP Debate of 1983,” Mises Daily (July 18, 2011); for LeFevre’s early adoption of the correct, anti-IP position, see LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles”. See also Leonard Read on Copyright and the Role of Ideas. Update: As noted in KOL457 | Sheldon Richman & IP; Andre from Brazil re Contract Theory, Student Loan Interest Payments, Bankruptcy, Vagueness, Usury, Sheldon Richman says Fred L. Smith was also good on this. I am researching… [↩]
- Butler Shaffer, A Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property(Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2013); KOL238 | Libertopia 2012 IP Panel with Charles Johnson and Butler Shaffer. [↩]
Don’t forget Glyn Moody.
As for myself, I remain one of those few libertarians steadfastly in support of intellectual property.
Reply
Based on no evidence and in direct contradiction to the NAP.
Reply
spiritsplice, it simply stands to reason. See http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=288
Reply