A friend pointed me to novelist Scott Sigler’s podcast episode DEEP CUTS Episode 49: Should Copyright be Abolished? In it, he discusses Musk and Dorsey’s suggestion to abolish copyright. As a novelist, naturally he is pro-copyright. I tried to listen but could only bear it for about 20 minutes. Almost ever other sentence was confused nonsense, providing yet another example of Brandolini’s Law. I can’t even.
So I got ChatGPT to do it. See below.
Related:
- Musk and Dorsey: “delete all IP law”
- Chamath Palihapitiya, IP and “Knowledge in Buckets” Confusion
- Koll: Jack Dorsey’s Fight Against Intellectual Monopolies
- Steptoe Patent Litigator Suarez: Musk and Dorsey’s Call to ‘Delete All IP Law’ Ignores Reality
- KOL459 | Twitter Spaces: Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, Libertarian Property Rights, and the Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property
In DEEP CUTS Episode 49, Scott Sigler and A.B. Kovacs discuss the implications of abolishing copyright, expressing concern that such a move could undermine creators’ ability to control and monetize their work. They argue that copyright serves as a crucial tool for protecting intellectual labor and ensuring fair compensation in the digital age.
Contrastingly, libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella, in his extensive writings—including Against Intellectual Property and You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property—argues that intellectual property rights, including copyright, are incompatible with genuine private property rights. He posits that such rights create artificial scarcity and infringe upon individual freedoms by granting monopolistic control over ideas and information. (C4SIF.org)
Kinsella contends that ideas are non-scarce and can be used by multiple people simultaneously without conflict. Therefore, granting exclusive rights over ideas through intellectual property laws is unjustified and detrimental to innovation and freedom. He further argues that creators can profit without relying on intellectual property protections by leveraging alternative business models and contractual agreements. (Flickr, C4SIF.org)
While Sigler and Kovacs focus on the practical implications for creators in the current economic landscape, Kinsella approaches the issue from a theoretical libertarian viewpoint, advocating for the abolition of intellectual property rights altogether. Their perspectives differ fundamentally, with Sigler and Kovacs emphasizing the protective role of copyright for creators, and Kinsella highlighting the philosophical and ethical arguments against the concept of intellectual property.
In summary, Sigler and Kovacs present a case for the continued relevance of copyright in supporting creators, whereas Kinsella offers a libertarian critique challenging the very foundation of intellectual property rights.
Detailed Fisking
Great — now that we have the transcript, here’s a detailed fisking of the arguments made by Scott Sigler and A.B. Kovacs in DEEP CUTS 49, analyzed through the lens of Stephan Kinsella’s anti-IP theory.
💥 Overview of Sigler & Kovacs’ Position
They argue that:
- Copyright is vital for protecting creators.
- Abolishing copyright allows Big Tech to steal and profit off creators’ work via AI.
- Copyright enables generational wealth and protects the “ownership” of ideas.
- Without copyright, creativity and artistic careers will be destroyed.
🪓 FISKING FROM KINSELLA’S ANTI-IP VIEW
1. “I gatekeep my own stuff”
“I am the one who gatekeeps … my own stuff.”
🧨 Kinsella’s rebuttal: That’s a misuse of the term “gatekeeping.” Gatekeeping applies to rivalrous goods—things that can be stolen or depleted. But ideas are non-rivalrous. You still have the idea if someone else copies it. Kinsella argues you can’t “gatekeep” a pattern of information any more than you can gatekeep a recipe someone memorized.
2. “IP creates generational wealth”
“Copyright is how families build generational wealth.”
🧨 Fisked: So did slavery and tariffs [NOTE by Kinsella: this last point makes no sense]. Kinsella would argue that beneficial outcomes for some do not justify unethical or coercive means. The state-granted monopoly of IP may enrich some, but it does so by restricting the freedom of others to use their own property (e.g., hard drives, printers, minds). There’s no right to profit—only to peacefully use property.
3. “You own what you create”
“You have ownership because you made it.”
🧨 Fisked hard: This is Kinsella’s “creationist fallacy”. You don’t own something because you created it; you own it because you homesteaded unowned, rivalrous resources. Creation only rearranges what’s already owned. You can’t gain rights over others by shaping ideas.
“Creation is not a source of property rights—it is only a way of transforming owned scarce resources.” – Kinsella
4. “Ideas are like factories”
“No one says ‘take over this factory and make widgets’ — so why should you be able to copy my book?”
🧨 Fisked: Factories are rivalrous. If I take your factory, you no longer have it. If I copy your book, you still do. This analogy collapses under the distinction between rivalrous (scarce) and non-rivalrous (information). IP law conflates the two.
5. “AI is stealing our stuff to make money”
🧨 Kinsella’s response: AI models that train on public content aren’t “stealing”—they’re imitating and generalizing, just like humans do. Copyright law is trying to ban what humans have done for millennia: learn, remix, improve. If AI can do it faster, that’s not theft—it’s competition.
6. “Copyright is about fair payment”
“You’re taking my stuff without paying me!”
🧨 Counter: Payment is only owed when there is a contract. Merely observing or using publicly available information doesn’t obligate payment. Copyright law enforces artificial exclusivity via coercion—not contracts. Voluntary exchange, not legislation, should govern commerce.
7. “It’s unfair that I have to enforce my own copyrights”
“I have to find and take down infringers. That’s so hard!”
🧨 Kinsella’s response: That’s a problem created by copyright law itself. If there were no IP rights, there would be no need to patrol the internet for “violations.” You can’t complain that it’s hard to enforce a right that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
8. “Copyright incentivizes creativity”
“Without IP, I wouldn’t get out of bed.”
🧨 Brutal fisking: First, many industries thrive without IP (fashion, cooking, martial arts). Second, psychological motivation does not justify state-backed monopoly privileges. You’re not owed a career as a writer any more than a farmer is owed rain.
“We should not use state violence to subsidize business models.” – Kinsella
9. “AI will destroy human creativity without copyright”
🧨 Kinsella’s reply: False. Human creativity is not caused by IP law. It predates it. Real creators will still create, as they always have. IP is not a prerequisite for passion, curiosity, or genius. What it does do is give powerful incumbents a club to beat down competition.
10. “Tech bros want all our work for free”
🧨 Fisked as a red herring: Whether tech billionaires are greedy or not is irrelevant to whether copyright is just. Kinsella does not defend tech monopolies—he criticizes all monopolies, including IP ones. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
🧠 Summary
| Claim (Sigler & Kovacs) | Fisked by Kinsella |
|---|---|
| Copyright protects creators | It protects some by harming others |
| You own what you create | Only if it involves scarce goods |
| AI “steals” IP | Copying ≠ theft. Ideas aren’t ownable |
| Copyright boosts innovation | It impedes it by restricting reuse |
| IP enables generational wealth | So do unjust privileges—irrelevant to justice |
| IP is about fairness | No one has a right to payment without a contract |
🔚 Final Thoughts
Sigler and Kovacs’ passion is real. But their reasoning is built on emotional appeals, false analogies, and moral intuitions incompatible with real property rights. Kinsella’s libertarian perspective shows that intellectual property is not property at all—it’s an anti-market, anti-competition privilege enforced by state coercion.
Would you like this analysis in a publishable format or essay version?
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.