Copy This Book and Steal This Idea

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.

Hoffman’s clever title has in the meantime been emulated by countless others,² including Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity, by Michael Perelman. The subtitle gave me no real hope that the author has a coherent and systematic case against IP; it sounds like a typical anti-corporate screed.³ I don’t have time to read it at present, so I asked Grok to summarize it. The results:

Summarize the arguments in Steal This Idea, by Michael Perelman. In particular, does he maintain that the patent and copyright laws should be abolished.

In Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity, Michael Perelman presents a critical examination of intellectual property (IP) laws, particularly patents and copyrights, arguing that they have been manipulated by corporate powers to stifle creativity, hinder scientific and economic progress, and disproportionately benefit a few at the expense of society. Below is a summary of his key arguments, followed by an assessment of whether he explicitly calls for the abolition of patent and copyright laws.

Summary of Arguments

1. Corporate Confiscation of Creativity:
   Perelman asserts that IP laws, originally intended to incentivize innovation by protecting inventors and creators, have been co-opted by corporations. He argues that these laws now serve as tools for large entities to monopolize ideas, extracting wealth while offering little to individual creators or the public. This “rapacious system” confiscates the benefits of creativity rather than fostering it.
2. Throttling Innovation and Progress:
   Contrary to the conventional view that IP rights spur innovation by protecting inventors from competition, Perelman contends that they often impede progress. He highlights how patents and copyrights lead to fragmentation (e.g., overlapping or conflicting claims), unnecessary duplication of effort, secrecy (to protect IP rather than share knowledge), and frequent litigation, all of which slow down scientific and technological advancement.
3. Economic Inequality and Power Imbalance:
   Perelman argues that the IP system creates a lopsided distribution of income, enriching corporations and patent holders who may not have contributed to the original creative or inventive process. He points to examples where individuals or entities profit massively simply by being the first to file paperwork, rather than by innovating themselves, exacerbating economic disparities.
4. Social and Cultural Harm:
   Beyond economics, Perelman sees IP laws as threats to personal freedom, privacy, and societal well-being. He suggests that excessive litigation and corporate control over knowledge disrupt education (e.g., by restricting access to research), interfere with scientific collaboration, and limit cultural participation, ultimately undermining liberty and democracy.
5. Critique of the “Conventional Wisdom”:
   He challenges the widely accepted notion that IP rights are essential drivers of economic progress. Instead, he frames them as mechanisms that grant “enormous powers to corporations” while providing minimal support to actual creators, such as artists or inventors, who often lose out in the system.
6. Call for Alternatives:
   Perelman explores the idea of moving beyond the current IP regime toward a system that better fosters intellectual progress and equitable distribution of benefits. He suggests that the current framework is deeply flawed and in need of radical rethinking, though he stops short of providing a detailed blueprint for an alternative.

Does Perelman Advocate for Abolition?

Perelman does not explicitly state that patent and copyright laws should be outright abolished in the sense of a complete repeal with no replacement. His critique is scathing, and he portrays the current IP system as fundamentally broken—describing it as a “litigatory nuthouse” that enriches a few while undermining liberty, science, and society. However, his argument leans more toward a profound overhaul rather than total elimination. He expresses frustration with the system’s outcomes (e.g., excessive litigation, corporate dominance) and questions its foundational logic, but he does not culminate his analysis with a definitive call to abolish all IP laws.

Instead, Perelman’s rhetoric suggests a desire to “move beyond” the current regime, as seen in his exploration of options for a system that “truly fosters intellectual progress.” This implies he envisions reform or replacement rather than absolute abolition. Critics of the book have noted that he builds a strong case against IP laws but fails to offer concrete solutions, leaving readers with a sense of dissatisfaction about what should replace the system. This ambiguity suggests that while he might sympathize with abolitionist sentiments (e.g., those of economists like Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, who advocate phasing out IP), his primary focus is on exposing the system’s flaws rather than committing to a singular policy of abolition.

Conclusion

In Steal This Idea, Michael Perelman argues that patent and copyright laws, as currently structured, harm innovation, concentrate wealth and power in corporate hands, and threaten societal well-being. While his critique is radical and aligns with some abolitionist ideas, he does not explicitly demand the complete abolition of these laws. Rather, he calls for a serious rethinking and restructuring of the IP framework to prioritize creativity, equity, and progress over corporate monopolies. His failure to propose a clear alternative leaves the question of abolition open-ended, positioning his work as a provocative critique rather than a definitive policy manifesto.

Here is Grok’s summary of Hoffman’s book:

Summarize the arguments in Steal This Book, by Abbie Hoffman. In particular, does he maintain that the patent and copyright laws should be abolished.

Steal This Book, written by Abbie Hoffman and published in 1971, is a countercultural manifesto that serves as both a practical guide and a political statement against capitalism, consumerism, and authority in the United States. Hoffman, a prominent activist and co-founder of the Youth International Party (Yippies), wrote the book to encourage young people to reject mainstream society and adopt a lifestyle of resistance, self-sufficiency, and subversion. The title itself is a provocative call to action, urging readers to steal the book rather than buy it, reflecting its anti-establishment ethos.

Summary of Key Arguments

1. Rejection of Capitalist Systems: Hoffman argues that American society is built on exploitative economic structures that prioritize profit over human needs. He critiques institutions like corporations, government, and the legal system, portraying them as tools of oppression that keep people dependent and powerless.
2. Survival Through Subversion: The book provides practical advice on how to “steal” or obtain necessities—food, housing, transportation, and more—without participating in the traditional economy. Examples include shoplifting techniques, scamming payphones, and squatting. Hoffman frames this as a moral response to an immoral system, encouraging readers to “liberate” goods and services rather than pay for them.
3. Community and Self-Reliance: Hoffman advocates for communal living and mutual aid as alternatives to individualism and consumerism. He suggests forming underground networks to share resources and knowledge, emphasizing a DIY (do-it-yourself) ethos to bypass corporate control.
4. Cultural Rebellion: Beyond material survival, the book promotes a broader cultural revolution. Hoffman sees acts of theft, disruption, and defiance as symbolic blows against authority, aiming to destabilize the status quo and inspire a freer, more egalitarian society.
5. Anti-Authoritarian Stance: The government, police, and legal system are depicted as enemies of freedom. Hoffman encourages readers to evade surveillance, resist arrest, and exploit loopholes in the system, positioning law-breaking as a form of liberation.

Position on Patent and Copyright Laws

Hoffman does not explicitly call for the abolition of patent and copyright laws in Steal This Book, nor does he dedicate a specific section to analyzing intellectual property as a legal concept. However, his broader philosophy and the book’s content implicitly challenge the legitimacy of such laws. Here’s how:

• Rejection of Property Norms: Hoffman’s central argument is that property—whether physical or intellectual—is a construct of an unjust system that should be undermined. The act of encouraging readers to steal the book itself (which was copyrighted) suggests a disregard for copyright as a mechanism of control and profit. He famously clashed with publishers over this, as many refused to print a book that advocated its own theft.
• Information as a Common Good: Throughout the text, Hoffman treats knowledge and resources as things that should be freely shared, not hoarded or monetized. Sections on how to access free education, media, and technology align with a view that intellectual property restrictions hinder collective liberation. For example, he provides blueprints for constructing makeshift tools and exploiting systems, implying that ideas should be open to all, not patented or restricted.
• No Explicit Abolitionist Stance: While Hoffman’s actions and rhetoric undermine the moral basis of copyright and patent laws, he stops short of a detailed policy argument for their abolition. His focus is practical and immediate—how to survive and resist—rather than theoretical or legislative. He doesn’t engage with the legal frameworks of intellectual property in a systematic way, likely because his anarchistic worldview dismisses all laws as inherently oppressive, making specific abolition unnecessary to state.

Conclusion

In Steal This Book, Abbie Hoffman presents a radical critique of capitalist society, advocating for a lifestyle of theft, communal living, and rebellion as a means of survival and resistance. While he doesn’t explicitly demand the abolition of patent and copyright laws, his philosophy and the book’s premise—especially its self-referential call to be stolen—implicitly reject the legitimacy of intellectual property protections. For Hoffman, such laws are part of the broader apparatus of control he seeks to dismantle, though his approach is more about subverting them in practice than debating their existence in theory.

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.) [↩]
2. See, e.g, those listed here, and others such as the podcasts Steal This Podcast and Steal This Idea, and various books such as Authors, Steal This Book: 67 Business Ideas for the Writers of the Future and Steal This: Ideas of Awesomeness for Your Camp. [↩]
3. Ep. 382 Sheldon Richman Says Corporate Isn’t a Dirty Word, The Bob Murphy Show. [↩]