Wojciech Gamrot, “Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights: Against Cwik,” Philosophy of Management (2026; pdf).
Abstract:
While the dominant justification for intellectual property rights seems to remain consequentialist, various deontological theories are also proposed. They often appeal, directly or indirectly, to intellectual labor as a source of rights or as a circumstance that is relevant to justifying intellectual property on moral grounds. Recently, another such theory has been proposed by Bryan Cwik, gaining substantial recognition. It holds that, in the absence of intellectual property regulation, innovators and artists are at a disadvantage as compared to manual laborers. This is because they cannot control how the fruits of their intellectual labor are used. Patents, copyrights and other similar regimes are portrayed as necessary to secure their control over the exercise of their productive capacities. In the present paper Cwik’s theory is evaluated and exposed as indeterminate. Its metaphysical presuppositions are also criticized. When they are replaced by a more coherent ontology, a reinterpretation of control relations follows. Cwik’s objective of maximizing individuals’ control over their own productive capacities is achieved by intellectual property abolition, rather than enforcement. His theory fails to support intellectual monopoly.
To be updated later: for now see:
Bryan Cwik, “Property Rights in Non‐rival Goods” (2, 3, 4). It’s another flawed argument, but at least he recognizes that ideas are not scarce (in the sense of rivalrous) and thus, to justify IP, one must come up with some way to justify property rights in non-rival goods. No surprise, he elsewhere makes other bad arguments for IP, e.g. “Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights” (2; 3).
(See also: “Good Ideas is Pretty Scarce”; KOL491 | Trying to Persuade Paul Cwik of the Case Against IP )
***
other IP theories
“The Problem with Intellectual Property,”
Paul Cwik: bad/evolving: See “Is There Room for Intellectual Property Rights in Austrian Economics?“, Mises.org (3/04/2008); also our recent discussion, KOL491, [tbd]
As I note in “Good Ideas is Pretty Scarce”, Yet others are a mite more honest. Case in point: “Property Rights in Non‐rival Goods,” by Bryan Cwik. It’s another flawed argument, but at least he recognizes that ideas are not scarce (in the sense of rivalrous) and thus, to justify IP, one must come up with some way to justify property rights in non-rival goods. No surprise, he elsewhere makes other bad arguments for IP, e.g. “Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights“; Gamrot, Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights: Against Cwik. (Interestingly, another Cwik, Paul Cwik, also makes bad arguments in favor of IP. Unlike the other Cwik, Paul should know better, as he is an Austrian and libertarian. See Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property.)
