I haven’t read this yet, but it looks interesting.

Wojciech Gamrot, “Inconsistencies in Himma’s Intellectual Property Theory,” Analiza i Egzystencja 63, 24 (2023): 109–132 [pdf]. ISSN: 1734-9923 eISSN: 2300-7621 OAI DOI: 10.18276/aie.2023.63-05

Abstract:

From an old discussion thread on Ed Ucation, “Intellectual Property: As usual, Rothbard gets it right,” Economic Policy Journal. Comment by Conza (Michael Conaghan):

The latest Rothbard commentary on IP outdating all of the above. Note the intellectual honesty. Note the admission of seeking further commentary. Note the request for more information. Note the shattering of your position that Rothbard saw copyright in perpetuity. [continue reading…]

This Term’s alignment of rights in trademarks and copyright with traditional rights in real property is a welcome baby step (indeed, two steps) forward for the Court, which in recent years has refused to put other intellectual property rights on par with real property. One can only hope that the Court will soon explicitly tie the intellectual property rights to the law of real property. One also hopes that while doing so, the Court will take a third step in the right direction by again treating patent rights on par with real property.

—Gregory Dolin, M.D., “Intellectual Property in OT 2022: Two Baby Steps in the Right Direction,” Cato Supreme Court Review 2022–2023 (hat tip Jeff Tucker)

Well, Taco is at it again. This is sad. This joker, or the editor of that review, seem oblivious to the fact that one of their former top scholars, Tom Palmer, was at the forefront of the battle against IP (before he softened his stance since many of Taco donors are Big Pharma, that is).¹ No wonder they disinvited me from an IP panel discussion (Disinvited From Cato). (And I guess it’s further confirmation I was right back in 1999, when Cato approached me about heading up their Supreme Court Law Review, to immediately say “not interested, thanks.”)

Dolin also refers to copyright infringement as “stealing,”² which is sloppy and inaccurate, and typical of the emotivist and dishonest way IP proponents argue—by simply labeling copying as stealing, theft, piracy, “ripping off,” and other inaccurate terms. Even the Supreme Court has observed that IP infringement is not “theft.”³

E.g., in Dowling vs United States, the Court held that copies could not be regarded as stolen goods under the law:

Instead, “interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ‘[…] an infringer of the copyright.’”

But Dolin and his socialistic comrades who favor abolition of private property rights in real resources in the name of the evil, murderous utilitarian bullshit of patent and other forms of IP law⁴ like to denigrate copying and free market emulation and competition and freedom of speech as “stealing.”
[continue reading…]

1. Sadly, David Henderson appears to have softened his own stance on IP too. Jeff Tucker winning economist David Henderson over to the anti-IP side. [↩]
2. “Whether that’s true or not, it is certainly true that the painting (like Warhol’s soup cans) ‘is immediately recognizable as a “Warhol.”‘ … But as a matter of copyright law, the retort is ‘so what?’ For example, the movie No Country for Old Men may be ‘instantly recognizable’ as a ‘Coen Brothers,’ but it does not follow that the movie’s adaptation of the original No Country for Old Men novel is, ipso facto, ‘fair use.’ If that were so, as the Court majority correctly observed, it would give famous, recognizable artists license to steal from lesser-known ones.” [↩]
3. See Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”. [↩]
4. See, e.g., Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse?”; “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright”; “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”; “Costs of the Patent System Revisited”; patents kill (search).  [↩]

From “KOL420 | There Ain’t No Intellectual Property: The Personal Story of a Discovery (PFS 2023)” (Sep. 24, 2023).

Read more>>

My book Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) has just been published. It has several chapters dealing with IP, to wit:

PART IV: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

14. Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society (2013)
15. Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (2023)
16. Introduction to Origitent (2018)
17. Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property (2018)
18. Goods, Scarce and Nonscarce (2010)

PART VI: INTERVIEWS & SPEECHES

23. Stephan Kinsella on the Logic of Libertarianism and Why Intellectual Property Doesn’t Exist (2012)

Good article: Sue Donimus, “Disproving Intellectual Property.” Text pasted below.

See also Sue Donimus, “How The Free Rider & Leaker Benefit The Author” and this quote from Rothbard:

“… the free-rider argument proves far too much. After all, civilization itself is a process of all of us ‘free-riding’ on the achievements of others. We all free-ride, every day, on the achievements of Edison, Beethoven, or Vermeer.”

Murray Rothbard, “The Myth of Neutral Taxation,” also in Economic Controversies, p. 478 et pass. Discussed in KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1. [continue reading…]

I’m so sick of American politicians and reporters droning on about “China is stealing our intellectual property!” without even knowing what the hell they are talking about.

From some Twitter posts:

what a crime against humanity that China is trying to … grow improved food crops. (See Aleks Phillips, “Iowa Farmers Accuse China of Stealing American Seeds,” Newsweek (Aug. 4, 2023).)

This moron on Fox News reporting on this said they were stealing “secret, patented modified seeds.” Uh, patents are public, not secret, moron. [continue reading…]