Contra la propiedad intelectual, Spanish translation of Against Intellectual Property (Scribd version; print version; pdf; local pdf (with foreword); Word; Vanguardia Libertaria). Traducción y prólogo: Mariano Bas Uribe. The prólogo, which included in the print version but missing from the files provided above, is reproduced below along with an English translation.

Prólogo

Contra la Propiedad Intelectual
By Stephan Kinsella (Against Intellectual Property)
Traducción y prólogo: Mariano Bas Uribe

Stephan Kinsella es uno de los expertos en uno de los asuntos menos tratados por la literatura libertaria reciente: la propiedad intelectual. Siendo él mismo abogado de propiedad intelectual, su postura en contra de su existencia no deja de resultar sorprendente, aunque también es un reflejo de su fidelidad a sus principios.

El libro que tiene el lector en sus manos contiene su obra principal, Contra la propiedad intelectual, y en él hace un repaso tanto de los distintos tipos de propiedad intelectual (patentes, derechos de autor, marcas registradas y secreto industrial) como de las distintas argumentaciones libertarias a favor y en contra de esta.

En un momento en el que la influencia en la política del llamado mundo de la «cultura» (al menos en España) va ganando cada vez mayor peso y ejerce su influencia para obtener dividendos materiales reforzando la legislación de protección de la propiedad intelectual, no parece fuera de lugar replantearnos la justicia y validez de esta institución.

La tesis esencial de Kinsella se basa en la función social de la propiedad. Como ha indicado repetidamente Hans-Hermann Hoppe, la función de la propiedad es la de resolver conflictos sobre el uso de los objetos. El hecho de que las cosas materiales posean un dueño evita los conflictos sobre su uso y resuelve el problema de la escasez. La llamada propiedad intelectual no se ve en absoluto afectada por este problema, ya que el uso de la misma no es exclusivo: por ejemplo, si estoy escuchando una canción, no se la estoy «quitando» a nadie y la copia de esta a un nuevo soporte no hace que desaparezca el original.

Pero Kinsella no se limita a hacer una exposición economicista-libertaria. También se ocupa de los argumentos relacionados con el fomento de la creación, el utilitarismo y el derecho natural, siempre con gran abundancia de ejemplos y notas a pie de página que facilitan al lector curioso la profundización en los argumentos aportados por el autor (lamentablemente, muchos de estos títulos están en inglés, aunque el volumen de literatura en español esté aumentando, gracias, entre otras cosas, a la labor de entidades como Unión Editorial, responsable de esta edición).

A pesar de que la edición original de este libro (de 2001) tiene ya unos años, la gran mayoría de sus argumentos siguen siendo válidos y permiten una visión general de los problemas planteados. Kinsella sigue escribiendo y aportando ideas dentro del entorno del Instituto Mises, siendo asimismo director del The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (https://c4sif.org/) y editor de Libertarian Papers (http://libertarianpapers.org/). Remitimos asimismo al autor curioso a esas publicaciones si quiere mantenerse al día sobre este asunto.

La propiedad intelectual es un asunto controvertido dentro del pensamiento libertario, incluso en el entorno estrictamente anarcocapitalista, por lo que este libro constituye una aportación extraordinaria a los muchos debates que se pueden plantear en este sentido. Kinsella atrae por la solidez de su argumentación, su erudición y su capacidad de explicación de los distintos argumentos, abarcando los puntos de vista de libertarios tan importantes como Rothbard, Rand, Block o David Friedman, sin olvidar algunos puntos de vista peculiares como los de Galambos. También expone algunos temas menos tratados, como la distinción entre descubrimiento e invención.

Kinsella concluye con un ensayo sobre la posibilidad de establecer algún tipo de propiedad intelectual basado en contratos, criticando ciertas aportaciones de Rothbard (que no estaba en contra de la propiedad intelectual), y termina con un curioso apéndice con ejemplos cuestionables de patentes y derechos de autor que nos deberían llevar a reflexión.

***

Foreword

Against Property Intellectual
By Stephan Kinsella (Against Intellectual Property )
Translation and foreword: Mariano Bas Uribe

Stephan Kinsella is one of the experts on one of the least discussed issues in recent libertarian literature: intellectual property. As an intellectual property lawyer himself, his stance against its existence is surprising, although it also reflects his commitment to his principles.

The book you are holding contains his main work, Against Intellectual Property , and in it he reviews both the different types of intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks and industrial secrets) and the different libertarian arguments for and against it.

At a time when the so-called “cultural” world (at least in Spain) is gaining increasing political influence and exerting its influence to obtain material benefits by strengthening intellectual property protection legislation, it does not seem out of place to reconsider the justice and validity of this institution.

Kinsella ‘s essential thesis is based on the social function of property. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has repeatedly pointed out, the function of property is to resolve conflicts over the use of objects. The fact that material things have an owner avoids conflicts over their use and solves the problem of scarcity. So-called intellectual property is not at all affected by this problem, since its use is non-exclusive: for example, if I listen to a song, I am not ” taking ” it from anyone, and copying it to a new medium does not make the original disappear.

But Kinsella doesn’t limit himself to an economicist-libertarian exposition. He also addresses arguments related to the promotion of creation, utilitarianism, and natural law, always with an abundance of examples and footnotes that make it easier for the curious reader to delve deeper into the author’s arguments (unfortunately, many of these titles are in English, although the volume of Spanish literature is increasing, thanks, among other things, to the work of organizations such as Unión Editorial , responsible for this edition).

Although the original edition of this book (from 2001) is a few years old, the vast majority of its arguments remain valid and provide an overview of the issues raised. Kinsella continues to write and contribute ideas within the Mises Institute, and is also director of The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (https://c4sif.org/) and editor of Libertarian Papers (http://libertarianpapers.org/). We also refer the curious author to these publications if they want to stay up-to-date on this issue.

Intellectual property is a controversial issue within libertarian thought, even within the strictly anarcho-capitalist context, so this book constitutes an extraordinary contribution to the many debates that can be raised in this regard. Kinsella is compelling due to the solidity of his arguments, his erudition, and his ability to explain the different arguments, covering the views of such important libertarians as Rothbard, Rand, Block, and David Friedman, without forgetting some peculiar points of view such as those of Galambos. He also expounds on some less-discussed topics, such as the distinction between discovery and invention.

Kinsella concludes with an essay on the possibility of establishing some form of intellectual property based on contracts, criticizing certain contributions by Rothbard (who was not against intellectual property), and ends with a curious appendix with questionable examples of patents and copyrights that should give us pause for thought.

Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before.

Judge Alex Kozinski, in White v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, 1513 (9th Cir. 1993) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)

As I noted here:

I published Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) last September, in hardcover, soft cover, and Kindle formats. A free pdf was released at the time of publication as well and the book was published under at CC0 (no rights reserved) license. Read more >>

As I explain at the AIP landing page,

For a compilation of my more recent writing on IP, see You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023). And see also Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023). I stand by AIP but You Can’t Own Ideas contains a streamlined and updated version of the arguments in AIP, “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society” (ch. 6) followed by Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (ch. 7) (these are also included in Part IV of Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)). Together, these two chapters my main arguments against IP. AIP and other chapters in You Can’t Own Ideas thus contain the bulk of my anti-IP ideas and will have to suffice until I tackle writing Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (probably in 2026 or so).

The purpose of property rights is to reduce conflict in the use of scarce means by assigning owners based on objective and just criteria, namely original appropriation (ownership, property) and contractual title transfer (contract), plus ancillary rules for tort (rectification).¹ [continue reading…]

1. Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) (LFFS), ch. 2, text at n.11 et pass., ch. 11, text at n.15 et pass.; also chs. 4, 5, 14, et pass.; Kinsella, “Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform,” StephanKinsella.com (May 30, 2022); idem, “KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019, Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (Feb. 9, 2019). [↩]

In a recent Federalist Society lecture series on Roman Law, Richard Epstein in one lecture (see below) discusses how the famous Roman jurist Gaius treats the concept of theft.

[continue reading…]

As I mention in Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property, Mark Skousen is bad on the topic of intellectual property. I know this from private correspondence with him in the wake of my Soho Forum debate (KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished).

Now he doubles down. In a recent article for the Cobden Centre, “This Little-Known Section of the Constitution Made America the World’s #1 SuperPower,” where he rightly points out the advantages of free trade in the American “common market” stemming from language in the US Constitution, he unfortunately adds this unnecessary comment to the end: [continue reading…]

Yet more IP absurdity. But this is where the “logic” of IP leads. H/t Bob Murphy.

Does Pantone have a monopoly on colors? Is that bad?

A while back Michael Rectwald sent me this 2008 paper of his, “The Trope of “the Poor Inventor” in the British Patent Debate (and Beyond).” If I am not mistaken, this was written even before he was a libertarian. Impressive.

Abstract:

As recent scholarship on the history of invention has shown, the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century inventor was proposed as a plausible new hero of the industrial revolution. But the inventor has also been characterized as a creature of accident—of risk, poverty, madness, and premature death. By the 1820s, inventors were not only heroes of industry; they became its victims as well—“poor inventors” who suffered under poverty and oppression to bring forth the works of the mind. The case of the poor inventor was introduced and championed by advocates of inventive workers from the 1820s until the 1840s; the figure came to stand emblematically for working-class interests at large. By 1850, however, the ideological and rhetorical construct of the poor inventor was appropriated by a liberal, mostly middle-class lobby to affect the first reform of patent law in modern British history.

As Michael commented to me, “It’s about the figure of the “poor inventor” and how it was mobilized to effect patent law “reform.” Note that my piece isn’t about IP per se. It focuses on the rhetoric used to maintain it as against the abolitionists of the period in Britain.”

For more on this issue, see my post “Intellectual Properganda.”

Too bad he was not the Libertarian Party’s nominee this year. He would have been the first Presidential candidate in history, to my knowledge, including previous LP candidates, to oppose IP. The current nominee, Chase Oliver, seems to have some good instinctual skepticism of IP but unfortunately no coherent or principled stand against it (see my tweet re same).

Posted on Twitter (July 22, 2024); the Google auto-translate, from the Portuguese, is pasted below.

The Absurdity of Intellectual Property Laws

By: Joakim Book @joakimbook

In a previous article, I explored the absurdity of intellectual property, the unfair and inefficient monopoly privilege it confers on those experienced enough to navigate the legal system well. Because they are non-scarce and non-rival objects, like ideas or sound waves arranged in a specific order, they cannot be property economically speaking. No one can “own” vibes or reasonably punish me for using your grandmother’s recipe for beef stew. (This is also why cultural appropriation is an absurd concept.) [continue reading…]

My article “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property” (pdf; epub; word files; Amazon; Mises Store; text below) has been published in Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella, eds., A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Sept. 20, 2024).¹ My original title was “Defamation Law and Reputation Rights as a Type of Intellectual Property” but I have simplified it.

In this article I briefly survey the modern concept of intellectual property, or IP, its four primary component rights—patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret—and how this concept and the “IP” terminology emerged. I then summarize the libertarian criticism of the main forms of IP with a focus on trademark law since it has the most similarity to defamation law and the reputation rights it protects. Next I provide the libertarian case against defamation law and reputation rights, and show similarities in the arguments for both trademark and defamation law as well as similarities in the case against both. I conclude that defamation law should be classified and treated as a type of IP and that like all forms of IP, it is illegitimate.

For previous arguments against defamation law, see Murray N. Rothbard, “Knowledge, True and False,” in The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, 1998) and Walter E. Block, “The Slanderer and Libeler,” in Defending the Undefendable (2018), and more recent criticisms by Gary Chartier and Ryan McMacken (see n. 41, below). Update: see also Skyler J. Collins, “Defamation is Not Aggression, Ergo, Not a Crime,” Everything-Voluntary.com (Sep. 9, 2021); idem, “How to Deflect and Pass The Burden of Proof,” Everything-Voluntary.com (Sep. 7, 2021); idem, “Defamation Lawsuits are State-Sponsored Aggression,” Everything-Voluntary.com (May 31, 2022).

See also Block on Defamation, where I criticize a recent piece by Walter arguing for expansion of defamation law.

See also IP Proponents Do Not Even Know The Difference Between Patent, Copyright, Trademark … 

[continue reading…]

1. It was originally slated to appear in Elvira Nica & Gheorghe H. Popescu, eds., A Passion for Justice: Essays in Honor of Walter Block (New York: Addleton Academic Publishers, forthcoming) but was withdrawn. [↩]

Mike Masnick of TechDirt, generally pro-civil liberties and generally skeptical of copyright but not an abolitionist, just put up a podcast episode he appeared on discussing free speech versus copyright and the censorship copyright law causes. This was an episode of the podcast “Sidebar by Courthouse News” called Copyright Conundrum, and re-podcast on Techdirt by Masnick. The shownotes: [continue reading…]

“Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance,” Brownstone Institute (April1, 2024)

Jesus. Another confused self-proclaimed advocate of liberty advocating statist censorship in the name of intellectual property,¹ just like other so-called libertarians have advocated restricting free trade for the same reasons.²

Adam Mossoff, “Congress Should Protect the Rights of American Creators with Site-Blocking Legislation” (Feb. 14, 2023). Look how many time he equates IP with normal property rights,³ and invokes the “fruits of their productive labors” misleading metaphor. Thanks, Locke, for the huge mistake.⁴ And also, he says:

“Unfortunately, a subset of libertarians—who advocate for anarchism in the physical world and in the digital domain of the internet—have created confusion about the protection of copyrighted works on the internet.

1. Others include Reason’s moron writer Cathy Young. See, e.g., Reason: Copyright Should Last Half A Century; Libraries: Prepare to burn foreign books, courtesy copyright law; COICA: More Copyright-Backed Censorship on the Way?; “SOPA, Piracy, Censorship and the End of the Internet? Kinsella and Stefan Molyneux on Freedomain Radio”; Copyright and Free Trade; Patents and Censorship”; Copyright Censorship versus Free Speech and Human Rights; Excessive Fines and the Eighth Amendment.” [↩]
2. Such as Richard Epstein, Doug Bandow, Michael Krauss, and now, embarrassingly and pathetically, David Henderson. See Cato Tugs Stray Back Onto the Reservation; Pilon on Patents; Cato on Drug Reimportation; Cato Tugs Stray Back Onto the Reservation; and Other Posts; Intellectual Property and Think Tank Corruption. And let’s not forget William Shughart writing in favor of IP for the Independent Institute. See Independent Institute on The “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection. [↩]
3. I criticize this, e.g., in “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” Part. IV.I, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). [↩]
4. Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory: Transcript. [↩]
5. An Objectivist Recants on IP; Yet another Randian recants on IP; “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism.” [↩]
6. See More defenses of IP by the Federalist Society; Independent Institute on The “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection; others here.  [↩]