C4SIF.org

Libertarians : “your a Marxist if you protect intellectual property rights “

Do limited time monopolies on patents make sense?

Ayn Rand and intellectual property

Copyrights & Debunking the “Scarcity Theory of Property” (i.e. Stefan Kinsella)

[continue reading…]

I was sightseeing earlier this week in Istanbul with my friends Greg Morin and Jay Baykal, a local. There were knockoff clothes and purses everywhere—in the Grand Bazaar, in the streets nearby, and so on. As I’ve pointed out before, trademark law is unjust.¹ It prohibits the sale of goods even when the consumers are not defrauded or confused—everyone knows that they are buying imitations.

We were looking at some of the cheaper knockoffs and Jay told me that the really good ones are more expensive and are so good you can’t even tell—these are called “genuine fakes.” Great expression. Down with IP. [continue reading…]

1. “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024). [↩]

The state regulates pharmaceuticals by laws and regulations that require prescriptions, FDA approvals, and so on. It distorts the market by regulating healthcare—inflating the price of insurance by prohibiting insurers taking into account pre-existing conditions, by tax rules that remove consumer choice from the payment, and so on. It inflates the prices of pharmaceuticals by granting patents and by imposing the huge regulatory burdens and cost of the FDA process, and by increasing demand for such pharmaceuticals from Medicare and Medicaid purchases. And then it tries to “negotiate” for lower prices, which causes much squawking. [continue reading…]

[From my Webnote series]

See Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), ch. 14, Part III.B and ch. 15, Part IV.C; Libertarian Creationism; Succinct Criticism of Utilitarianism and Libertarian Creationism.

[continue reading…]

From my Patents kill series. Maybe he means patents here, maybe copyright. Not sure.

From Breck Yunits, Cancer and Copyright (editor of Voices For Liberty: Essays Against Copyright and Patent Law).

Every second your body makes 2.83 million new cells. If you studied just one of those cells from a single human—sequencing all the DNA, RNA, and proteins, you would generate more data than can fit in Google, Microsoft, and Amazon’s datacenters combined. Cancer is an information problem.

*

Mitosis refers to the process where a cell splits and takes about 2 hours. If you were building a startup and it was the fastest startup ever and your team doubled in size every month, you would be going at 0.0028 the speed of mitosis. Mitosis is very very fast.

*

We think our information tools have gotten fast because we compare them to our old tools, but when we compare them to the challenge of mitosis and cancer they are slower than molasses.

*

Copyright laws are intellectual slavery, and slow down our cancer researchers and healthcare workers to crawling speed. Because of our expanding copyright laws, our information tools are far too slow and as a result our cancer survival rates haven’t budged in a century.

Bad ideas survive far too long before evolving into good ideas in an information environment with copyright.

*

We can either cure cancer or have copyright laws. We cannot do both. Mitosis is too fast and we need our information tools to be much, much faster. We need them to be orders of magnitude faster.

Read more>>

Voices For Liberty: Essays Against Copyright and Patent Law, compiled by Breck Yunits (2025). As explained in About page, this compilation is based in part on my own collection, Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023). Yunits’s selection contains many of those featured in my collection and also some others not included in mine. Yunits’ compilation is thus neither a subset nor superset of mine but an intersecting set. In any case, a very useful anti-IP resource.

[From my Webnote series]

• Various posts under the tag China-IP-theft, including—
• More of the “China is Stealing Our IP” nonsense
• All-In Podcast Concern over China and IP “Theft”
• KOL460 | Rant about the “China is Stealing Our IP” Myth
• Lacalle on China and IP “Theft”
• Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Does China have “more fierce” competition because of weaker IP law?
• “To Steal a Book is an Elegant Offense”—Chinese saying
• “IP can’t be socialistic, since the Soviet Union didn’t recognize IP law“
• Decouple Trade and IP Protection
• “Free-trade” pacts export U.S. copyright controls,  and other on IP Imperialism
• Trump’s Proclamation World Intellectual Property Day, 2025: Of course these geniuses just repeat the same nonsense about IP being “the same as” property and how infringing IP is “theft” of course they are insinuating China “steals American IP,” all of which are confused bullshit lies and distortions.
  • This Proclamation also explicitly admits that it is using tariffs and other trade negotiations to engage in IP imperialism: “Through the strategic use of tariffs, we are recentering our trade policy and securing stronger intellectual property protections in new and existing trade deals.”
• The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property
• Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off;
• See Kevin Duffy’s comments in Is China Guilty as Charged? | Tom Woods Show #2633, at about 19:50. Unlike most commentators, Duffy gets it right: that IP is not a legitimate property right, that IP law is unjust, and all the criticisms of China are based, in part, on the idea that China is somehow violating IP rights, and that this would be bad. It’s not, and they aren’t anyway.