C4SIF.org

Related:

• On Leading by Example and the Power of Attraction (Open Source Publishing, Creative Commons, Public Domain Publishing)
• Libertarian Papers (About)
  • Welcome to Libertarian Papers!
  • “Fifteen Minutes that Changed Libertarian Publishing” (2)
• Doug French, “The Intellectual Revolution Is in Process“
• Academic publishers have become the enemies of science: yet more real piracy
• The Academic Publishing Paywall Copyright Subsidized Racket
• The digital publishing revolution starts now
• Tucker, The Magic of Open-Source Publishing
• Jeff Tucker Free Talk Live Interview on Open Information and IP
• “A Theory of Open” (archived comments)
• B.K. Marcus, Mises.org on iTunes U
• Doug French, The Intellectual Revolution Is in Process (archived blog comments)
• Kinsella, “Teaching an Online Mises Academy Course”
• Gary North, “A Free Week-Long Economics Seminar”
• “up with iTunes U”
• Jeff Tucker Free Talk Live Interview on Open Information and IP
• Mises.org in the Context of Publishing History
• Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation (archived comments)
• Tucker, “Authors: Beware of Copyright,” “Books, Online and Off” and “Mises.org in the Context of Publishing History,” in Bourbon for Breakfast (Mises Institute, 2010)

Martin Kulldorff, “The Rise and Fall of Scientific Journals and a Way Forward,” Brownstone Journal (Oct. 14, 2025)

Scientific journals have had enormous positive impact on the development of science, but in some ways, they are now hampering rather than enhancing open scientific discourse. After reviewing the history and current problems with journals, a new academic publishing model is proposed. It embraces open access and open rigorous peer review, it rewards reviewers for their important work with honoraria and public acknowledgement, and it allows scientists to publish their research in a timely and efficient manner without wasting valuable scientists’ time and resources. [continue reading…]

Related:

• Masnick on Innovation vs. Invention; on Irrelevant and Nonrigorous Distinctions: Innovation, Invention, Ideas, Knowledge, Data, Discovery…
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• The Problem with Intellectual Property

I noticed several people today tweeting about Joel Mokyr and his distinction between prescriptive and propositional knowledge. [continue reading…]

Most people do not understand that IP law is domestic only, which is why it is nonsensical to say that China is “stealing” western “IP”.¹ Most countries have IP protection, primarily because of Western, primarily US, IP imperialism and bullying, mostly at the behest of Big Pharma (patents) and Hollywood and the music industry/RIAA (copyright) which have forced other countries to adopt American-style IP, to their detriment.² But any country that chooses not to have IP rights and does not protect inventions and and artistic works does not violate others’ property rights, any more than insecure property rights in North Korea violates property rights in Texas. (IP supporters do not understand that this is a difference between real property rights and fake IP rights, since if your property right in material resources in a given jurisdiction are secure–in your home, in your body, in your car–then what other people do in some lawless regime simply cannot violate your property rights; yet they somehow think “China” can “steal” Western property rights by failing to enforce them locally. This alone shows that IP rights are not “similar to” real property rights. But let this pass.)³ [continue reading…]

1. The China Stealing IP Myth; Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft”; Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off. [↩]
2. The Mountain of IP Legislation. [↩]
3.  The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property. [↩]

[From my Webnote series]

From Recent tweets:

Why the patent system is arguably worse than the Holocaust. It has killed orders of magnitude more people. https://t.co/NN0ASWN2Lw

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 9, 2025

[continue reading…]

For my friend George Reisman, I have hosted his Program of Self-Education in the Economic Theory and Political Philosophy of Capitalism lectures as well as his Pepperdine lectures on my site and youtube until he can get his old site Capitalism.net refurbished. He’s Objectivist so is in favor of IP (see Capitalism, excerpts below). Naturally, we disagree on this issue; see Trademark Ain’t So Hot Either…; Trademark and Fraud; Discussion with George Reisman; Trademark and Fraud; also The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression). From Macro Lecture 14A Inflation I  [mp3]:

He states:

the consequence of that is that Capital will move from the low profit lines into the high profit lines that expands production in those lines in order to find buyers for the additional goods what has to happen to prices play come down when costs fall unless it’s a patented process or a secret technology in fairly short order prices are going to come down to correspondwith the lower costs and so if we had a wage rates broadly falling that would reduce costs and prices would decline commensurately when you have improvements in the productivity of Labor prices also decline and perhaps the most dramatic example in our own experience is the prices of a megabyte or a gigabyte of a hard drive space or of ram what’s happened to these things over the last 20 years prices diminish tremendously  …

[continue reading…]

Related

• Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Artificial Intelligence and IP
• Whereupon Grok admits it (and AI) is severely gimped by copyright law
• Other AI posts

Mohamad Albakjaji and Reem Almarzouqi, “The Dilemma of the Copyrights of Artificial Intelligence,” International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD) 16, no.1 (2024): 1-15 (official)

Abstract:

Artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) share some key similarities, such as uncertainty in predictions, processing a massive amount of data, and machine learning. Yet, they also differ from each other. This paper provides background information on how these two domains have evolved over time. It also highlights how Saudi Arabia’s IP system differs from those of other countries. Furthermore, this article explores the relationship between AI and IP and their application in copyright. This study is significant as it helps identify the challenges and opportunities that AI presents with respect to IP in terms of copyright. Finally, this article makes recommendations that will help protect both AI and IP.

[continue reading…]

LNC kicks out LPNH (May 2026)

Libertarian Party Statement on the Disaffiliation of LPNH Posted on 05/27/2026 By TownUnderground

All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025

it’s especially funny that the LP is threatening a trademark lawsuit against LPNH… in violation of their own platform https://t.co/RqB0nsHnji pic.twitter.com/bxKGyqe9Dc

— Jeremy Kauffman 🦔🌲🌕 (@jeremykauffman) May 26, 2026

Ahem
This literally goes against stated libertarian policy that IP rights are not to be respected.
You’re literally betraying core LP ideals.https://t.co/dU3sEyMpAY

— Marxon (@Marxon1134x) May 27, 2026

There were a bunch of “purist” libertarians who went apeshit about the LP-RJK joint fundraising thing–claiming the LNC action violated the bylaws since it went against libertarian principles, which was a dubious argument (see decision below). However, the Platform clearly…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) May 27, 2026

In about a month’s time when the LNC is pursuing legal action on the basis of trademark law against @LPNH, I expect to receive apology letters from all of you.

— LiquidZulu, most consistent mofo you know (@liquid2ulu) May 27, 2026

As an addendum to this, I am imploring people to actually read LP National’s statement with respect to the disaffiliation of the LPNH.

What you will notice is that the disaffiliation is inextricably tied to the enforcement of LP National’s intellectual property claim over their…

— MonHop 👑 (@MonarchoHoppean) May 28, 2026

While the pursuit of absolute adherence to the non-aggression principle is of course fundamental to the libertarian movement, what is also necessary and foundational to our success is the ability to be wrong.

I disagreed with @liquid2ulu (aka @Not_LiquidZulu) for his take about… pic.twitter.com/m9fByctr6W

— MonHop 👑 (@MonarchoHoppean) May 28, 2026

FW: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review (May 28, 2026)

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l…@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 6:10:58 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p…@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi…@lp.org>
Subject: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Dear Chair McMahon,

I am writing to you this afternoon to formally request that you, along with counsel, immediately pause any forward momentum, new filings, or escalations (subject to mandatory court-ordered deadlines) regarding all pending trademark lawsuits currently involving the Libertarian National Committee—specifically including, but not limited to, the ongoing litigation in New Mexico and Michigan.

To be clear, this communication is not a formal motion, nor is it intended to spark a protracted debate via email ballot. Instead, I am raising this as a matter analogous to a point of personal privilege—or more accurately, a point of privilege for the entire assembly.

As a newly elected body, many of our regional representatives, officers, and at-large members have inherited complex, high-stakes legal battles that we had absolutely no voice in initiating, voting upon, or strategizing. Because the LNC bears the ultimate financial and fiduciary responsibility for these actions, we are collectively exposed to the consequences of decisions made by a previous board.

It is a matter of basic fairness and institutional privilege that the newly elected members of this committee be allowed a reasonable window to review the case files, consult with counsel, and fully familiarize themselves with the underlying issues, risks, and expenditures before any further binding steps are taken. I do request time for Executive Session to review with counsel at our next meeting on June 6.

Taking a brief operational pause to allow for a comprehensive onboarding regarding our legal portfolio will ensure that any future actions taken by the LNC are unified, well-informed, and truly reflective of the current committee’s direction.  Many of us not on the previous LNC have not been personally invested in or attached to the conflicts but have heard from long time members about the harm they are doing to donors and local parties.

I request that you confirm receipt of this notice and advise the committee on the status of a temporary stay on these legal actions until a proper briefing can be conducted for the full board. I would like this body to ultimately decide whether we continue these lawsuits or not. Personally, I’d like to discuss other options involving the trademark, including a variety of resolution strategies.

Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Chair and I look forward to your prompt response.

Related

• LP Platform
• Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform
• Recent Trademark litigation emails from the LNC Public List

All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025

[continue reading…]

Related:

• Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property
• IP as Contract
• The Problem with Intellectual Property
• IP Answer Man

In July 2010 I received the attached Word file via a service I used to use, YouSendIt. I just came across it in a search on my computer. I was unable to find the author at the time. I have confirmed it was Jim Cox, author of The Concise Guide To Economics. I never responded since I didn’t know who to respond to.

[continue reading…]

See the site below based on Against Intellectual Property: Against Intellectual Property: A Stephan Kinsella Analysis: “Exploring how patent monopolies distort markets, stifle innovation, and violate genuine property rights through interactive economic modeling.”

Not sure how to describe it or what it is.

Related:

• The Problem with Intellectual Property
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent”
• Against Intellectual Property
• Kinsella, You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023)
• Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023)
• “There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property”
• Richard Epstein’s Takings Political Theory versus Epstein’s Intellectual Property Views
• “Absurd Arguments for IP”
• USPTO/Commerce Dept. Distortions: “IP Contributes $5 Trillion and 40 Million Jobs to Economy”
• Patents: Horizontal vs Vertical Innovation
• Cato vs. Public Citizen on IP and the TPP
• KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory
• Succinct Criticism of Utilitarianism and Libertarian Creationism
• Libertarian Creationism
• Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action
• Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
• Copyright is Unconstitutional

I have often pointed out that are are no good arguments for IP. They are all absurd.¹ This includes principled/deontological/natural rights/”creationist” arguments for IP² and empirical/consequentalist/utilitarian arguments. [continue reading…]

1. “There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property”; “Absurd Arguments for IP”; USPTO/Commerce Dept. Distortions: “IP Contributes $5 Trillion and 40 Million Jobs to Economy”. [↩]
2. KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory; Succinct Criticism of Utilitarianism and Libertarian Creationism; Libertarian Creationism; Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action. [↩]

Related:

• The Problem with Intellectual Property
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• Optimal Patent and Copyright Term Length
• Where did the patent term come from?
• Conversation with Sabhlok re Locke and Intellectual Property as a Natural Right or Property Right
• Sabhlok and Rogan on Intellectual Property
• KOL466 | On IP Reform and Improving IP law

From Sanjeev Sabhlok:

The final part of my piece on property rights and intellectual property has now been published by TOI:https://t.co/fNxvswYPKr

PDF containing all three parts: https://t.co/qAx2s4IwJI https://t.co/SxcBIiglCJ pic.twitter.com/iZcAKxGxhR

— Sanjeev Sabhlok (@sabhlok) September 29, 2025

[continue reading…]

[Aug. 9, 2025]

Dear Mr. Kinsella,

I have been touching up on some of the anti-IP arguments that have been raised by libertarian theorists and you alike.

Specifically, I think the argument goes like this. [continue reading…]

Adapted from a Twitter post:

The banality of evil on full display: IP shill and buffoon Gene Quinn (https://t.co/pkD0AX0r0f) and clueless technocrat Darren Tang of WIPO (https://t.co/dW9FMao9M7) mirthfully yapping along and praising “IP as a Force for Good”. Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) September 15, 2025

[continue reading…]