It is easy to see that the patent for invention is a privilege and an industrial monopoly, of the same family as those of the Middle Ages which were abolished immediately after 1789.
Il est facile de voir que le brevet d’invention est un privilège et un monopole industriel, de la même famille que ceux du moyen âge qu’on a abolis immédiatement après 1789. —Michel Chevalier
From Stéphane Geyres’s tweet:
Il est facile de voir que le brevet d’invention est un privilège et un monopole industriel, de la même famille que ceux du moyen âge qu’on a abolis immédiatement après 1789.
Michel Chevalier
(@NSKinsella : a gift from long ago) pic.twitter.com/G0llX610ME
Control freak
One striking feature of Objectivism is it outspoken support of intellectual property. A key scene in Atlas Shrugged is where metallurgist genius Hank Rearden is compelled by the government to hand over his intellectual rights to his innovative metal alloy, and Ayn Rand acted in kind. She passionately used the copyright on her works to bar people from forming “John Galt Societies”, citing that the name John Galt is her creation and her intellectual property.
For a person bent on propagating her ideas to the maximum extent possible, this would seem eerily counterproductive. Stealing an object from someone is obviously depriving the original owner of his property, but copying it isn’t. It may or may not be harmful to potential income, but that income remains potential, in the realm of the unprovable. This is a debate that incites extreme passion.
While Objectivists, libertarians and conservatives strongly agree on the principle of physical property rights, the picture is much more divided when it comes to ‘intellectual property’, a catch-all phrase for several different items, including patents, copyright and trademarks. In a landmark essay by Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property, argues that ‘Intellectual property’ is not only meaningless and harmful, it is in direct violation of the general principle of private property, and primarily constitutes a state-sanctioned creation of artificial scarcity, leading ultimately to poverty, not job creation and wealth.
The wider libertarian movement accepted the argument, put it into action (see www.mises.org/books) and moved on. Objectivists, on the other hand, maintain that what Ayn Rand spoke and practiced on the subject remains the unalterable truth.
Against Intellectual Property: An Enlightening Essay
By Marius-Joseph Marchetti
August 7, 2019
Let’s dive into a quality libertarian work: Against Intellectual Property by N. Stephen Kinsella (and translated into French by Stéphane Geyres and Daivy Merlijs). The 76-page book aims to fulfill several roles, which it fulfills very well. It is divided into four parts, each essential for having an overall vision of intellectual property. [continue reading…]
Just one follow up question: If you can, could you give an idea of how the “creative industries” might operate in a world without copyright and intellectual property? I.e. how would things like films and television, which require significant capital investment, be funded and ultimately constitute a profitable enterprise outside the current paradigm where copyright owners profit from selling copyrighted material/from royalties? Would the “creative industries”, as we know them today, even exist?
To me that seems to be the sticking point for many people — they might admit the principled objections to copyright and IP, but can’t get their head around how cultural content would be made without copyright. I’m not sure I fully grasp it myself. [continue reading…]
In response to lots of froth on Twitter related to Jack Dorsey’s call to “delete all IP law,” which was echoed by Elon Musk (Musk and Dorsey: “delete all IP law”) I decided to attempt to host an impromptu Twitter Spaces about this. After overcoming some technical glitches, here is the result (and thanks to @Brunopbch, @NotGovernor (Patrick Smith), and @TrueAmPatriot86 for assists). I proposed to the space: “Fielding Questions About Abolishing Intellectual Property, about IP, and About Libertarian Property Rights”, and that’s basically what we ended up talking about. The Twitter spaces can be viewed here; I have clipped off the first 8 minutes or so of setup talk for this podcast episode.
About 15 years ago one Russell Madden was angry with my anti-IP article “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” so he emailed me a suspiciously similar version, but with “his name” “slapped on” it, titled “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism, by Russell Madden.” His accompanying note said, “SURE. NO SUCH THING AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY…” So, to be helpful, I published it for him, on my own site.1 After all, maybe the poor fella didn’t have a site or way to publish his intriguing anti-IP article!
Well now, pro-copyright author J.P. Chandler tells me he is also wants to publish a book called Legal Foundations of a Free Society—hey, that’s the same title as mine! [continue reading…]
As everyone knows, I oppose all forms of IP law. I have also endeavored for many years to publish as much as I can free from copyright, at least in my libertarian writing (it has not been possible with my legal books published with mainstream, for-profit publishers),1 although it’s really that easy to get rid of copyright.2
When I submit a chapter for inclusion in a book, the book is often from a for-profit academic publisher. Though they pay the authors nothing, they often charge insane prices for the books and of course employ copyright paywalls. They also often demand the author assign their copyright. I always refuse. Sometimes I resort to tricks to get around this. [continue reading…]
“According to a press release by the Recording Industry Association of America today, the updated bill ‘takes a measured approach to protecting Americans from invasive deepfakes while reducing litigation and promoting American AI development.’”
Today, Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) reintroduced the NO FAKES Act, which would create a federal IP right to an individual’s voice and likeness.
In September 2024, U.S. Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Joe Morelle (D-NY), Rob Wittman (R-VA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, two months after Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar and Tillis had in the Senate. [continue reading…]
DanielLacalleon Twitter: “China bans US exports ans businesses and steal intelectual property.” I have no doubt that most of Lacalle’s criticisms of China are true. But not this one.
Lacalle seems to be unaware that mis-named and dishonestly-named “intellectual property” (IP)1 is actually antithetical, hostile, and contrary to free markets, capitalism, private property, and so on, and that Austrians and libertarians—especially Austro-libertarians, and especially those affiliated with the Mises Institute (see this recent Tweet by the Mises Bookstore, for example)—by and large now recognize this.2 IP is socialistic and destructive, and downright evil to the core. We would never endorse the institution of IP. As I wrote previously, [continue reading…]
I’ve really come to like the @theallinpod podcast, with @chamath, @jason, @davidsacks, and @friedberg. In a recent episode, however (https://overcast.fm/+AAYlhlXNXk8), there is confusion about IP and China. At about 1:00:45, Friedberg starts talking about 3 of his concerns about protectionist tariffs– but the worst, for him (at 1:05:15) is he is “most worried about” — is China just ignoring IP rights (patents and copyright, I assume?) of Americans or foreigners and then, I guess, “take” American IP rights and, I guess, use it to make copies and sell it “all around the world”.
This is very confused. First, it is not true, Calacanis implies, that China doesn’t respect IP rights now. Sure, they don’t do a “great job” of it, but no one does since it’s impossible to stop all piracy. Even the US can’t, with with its insane IP laws. Just as the US drug war doesn’t stop drugs; we can’t even stop them in prisons. It’s impossible to prevent copying (not “theft!”)1in any system since it is a unnatural and immoral law. The fact that China doens’t stop it as well as the US does doesn’t mean they have no IP system. They do, do all other countries. (( IP can’t be socialistic, since the Soviet Union didn’t recognize IP law )) [continue reading…]
As mentioned in Speaking at APEE IP Panel in Guatemala, yesterday (April 7, 2025) I spoke on a panel at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala. The theme of this year’s meeting was “The Economic History of State and Market Institutions,” April 6-8, 2025, Guatemala City, Guatemala (program). My panel was Panel 50. [1.E.06] “Intellectual Property: Old Problems and New Developments,” Monday, April 7, 2025, 3:50 pm-5:05 pm, Breakout06. Organizer: Monica Rio Nevado de Zelaya, Universidad Francisco Marroquín;
Chair: Ramón Parellada, Universidad Francisco Marroquín. My full panel:
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.
From 
Follow Us!