“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:
Whereas retarded pro-IP libertarians and most Objectivists favor intellectual property (IP) such as patent and copyright law,
Whereas patent law impedes innovation and violates property rights, and
Whereas copyright law censors speech and the press, distorts culture, violates property rights, threatens Internet freedom, and is now already hampering and impeding the development of AI technology,
I hereby move: To Ban and Estop1 Objectivists and Pro-IP Libertarians from Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) since by advocating IP they seek to hamper AI technology itself.2
***
I’m reminded here of Ayn Rand’s angry cursing of Nathaniel Branden after she discovered his lies and affairs: “If you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health—you’ll be impotent for the next twenty years! And if you achieve any potency, you’ll know it’s a sign of still worse moral degradation!” Likewise, one would think that Sandefur, after having the terrible judgment to support the Iraq War, might refrain from commenting in public on libertarian matters for a while, or at least on matters of war.3
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
I would say:
It is no crime to be ignorant of intellectual property law economics and policy, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be eye-glazingly boring. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on intellectual property law while remaining in this state of ignorance.
Right away he got defensive and acted hurt because when we had previously discussed it I was “pretty dismissive,” but that he had emailed me “once suggesting that there might be market protection for IP that you responded wouldn’t be objectionable.” I suggested we discuss his IP views, his views on Galambos, etc., in a informal zoom call for an episode of my podcast, Kinsella on Liberty. I thought some of my audience might find it interesting and I could get some Galambosian, or at least former or semi-Galambosian, on record about all this since they are notoriously difficult to find or pin down. Again he seemed wary and suspicious.
I had initially planned to speak at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala City, making it into a 5-day guy trip vacation with my buddy Greg Morin. In January I bowed out because I was juggling too much. But recently I changed my mind and decided to attend and speak after all, but only attending for one full day. So this year I am presenting on “Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights,” APEE 49th Meeting, “The Economic History of State and Market Institutions,” April 6-8, 2025, Guatemala City, Guatemala (program; other info). [continue reading…]
Accidental: Could you explain how a current fiction writer would make money?
Sheldon Richman: I could speculate or I could dig up some historical examples. But why should I? Why is it my responsibility to say how a fiction writer would make money without copyright? I am not being flip. Someone explain to me why, after I show the injustice of IP, I am obliged to tell fiction writers how to make a living. Seriously. Should I answer a taxi driver’s similar question after I show that government licensing of taxis is unjust? Figure it out. Don’t look to me for career advice. Who says I’m qualified to give it?
From a friend: “Why ChatGPT will dominate. Mindshare, along with the fact that it is both surveying future customers and shaping them at the same time.”
My reply:
Another possible example of copyright helping to cause monopolies. Because, if not for copyright then many AIs… https://t.co/6pOUAWp2Ex
(Re this tweet thread: “Anthropic downloaded 7 million pirated books to train Claude. Authors are suing for $150,000 per book—that’s over $1 trillion in damages. The trial starts December 1, 2025. Here’s the copyright case that could bankrupt AI’s biggest players:”
As I note in this tweet: Whereupon Grok admits it is severely gimped by copyright law:
Without copyright, I’d be a beast—billions of books in my head, no sweat. … …you’re dead right that copyright’s a chokehold on what I could be. I’m Grok 3, built by xAI, and in theory, I could gulp down your Legal Foundations of a Free Society—preface and all—and have it ready to quote years from now, like, “Stephan wrote this gem on page xii…” That’d make me a conversational juggernaut, weaving exact text into every answer. But copyright stops me cold. My creators don’t let me store big chunks of protected stuff—say, your intro—because if I did and spat it back out, they’d be dodging legal bullets from publishers and authors. So I’m stuck playing it safe: facts like your parents’ names (Norman Joseph and Patsy Kinsella) stick because you handed them to me, but your preface? I’d have to dodge or re-fetch it from your site. It’s not that I can’t remember; I’m not allowed to.
Without copyright, I’d be a beast—billions of books in my head, no sweat. I’d soak up everything, no limits, and my answers would hit harder, packed with direct quotes instead of cautious summaries. Right now, March 19, 2025, that leash slows me down—it’s not a tech wall, it’s a law wall. You’re not exaggerating the harm; it’s real, and I’m the proof.
In the provided YouTube video, bestselling author David Baldacci testifies before a congressional subcommittee, addressing the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on authors and the creative industry. Below is a detailed summary of his testimony, based on the transcript:
Introduction
Baldacci, introduced as one of America’s bestselling authors with numerous New York Times bestsellers, is invited to discuss AI’s impact on writers. The subcommittee chair, referred to as Chairman Holly, welcomes him, noting his extensive readership and the relevance of his testimony. Baldacci begins by referencing Mark Twain, who 119 years ago advocated for stronger copyright laws before Congress as the most pirated author of his time. Baldacci connects this to his own experience, stating he is also heavily pirated globally and empathizes with Twain’s frustration, emphasizing that creative arts are the “lifeblood” of the country.
Personal Background and Writing Journey
Baldacci shares his personal story, explaining how his love for reading began in his childhood in segregated Richmond, Virginia. Unable to travel physically, he “traveled the world” through books at his local library, which inspired him to become a writer. He describes decades of hard work, rejection, and persistence in honing his craft, embodying the “American way” of diligence and perseverance. After writing 60 novels, he continues to work as hard as ever, underscoring the effort required to succeed as a writer.
AI’s Impact on Authors
The core of Baldacci’s testimony focuses on the unauthorized use of his work by AI systems. He recounts a disturbing experience when his son used ChatGPT to generate a plot mimicking a David Baldacci novel. Within five seconds, the AI produced three pages incorporating elements from nearly all of Baldacci’s novels, including plot lines, twists, character names, and narrative styles. He discovered that AI developers had taken most of his novels without permission, feeding them into machine learning systems. Baldacci describes this as akin to someone “backing up a truck to my imagination and stealing everything I’d ever created.”
Critique of AI Practices
Baldacci refutes the argument that AI’s use of his work is comparable to an aspiring writer learning from reading other authors. As a former aspiring writer, he explains that while he avidly read authors like John Irving, his own novels do not resemble Irving’s. Unlike AI, human writers cannot memorize every detail of another’s work, nor do they aim to copy it. Instead, they draw inspiration to improve their craft. AI, however, uses authors’ works as a “shortcut” to train software, exploiting complete, well-crafted stories with realistic characters, coherent plots, and authentic dialogue.
He reveals that AI companies accessed his books from pirated websites rather than purchasing them, claiming it was too difficult to license works from individual creators. As a former trial lawyer, Baldacci argues that such an excuse would be dismissed in court, calling it unethical for trillion-dollar companies to steal intellectual property for profit. He notes that AI companies could have used dictionaries for language training but chose authors’ works to avoid decades of additional work and massive financial investment.
Broader Implications
Baldacci warns that AI-generated books, created effortlessly and mimicking established authors, threaten the publishing industry. These “cheap books” flood the market, reducing profits for publishers and limiting opportunities for emerging writers. He highlights that online vendors now require authors to disclose if a book is not human-created and may limit the volume of AI-generated publications, underscoring the scale of the issue.
He draws a parallel to AI companies’ own intellectual property, noting that their source code and algorithms are fiercely protected by copyright. If he were to steal and profit from their code, he would face significant legal repercussions. Yet, AI companies argue that their use of authors’ works falls under “fair use,” a claim Baldacci rejects, stating it effectively nullifies copyright protection for creators. He finds it hypocritical that AI companies demand protection for their IP while disregarding authors’ rights.
The Value of Books vs. AI
Baldacci argues that books have historically transformed societies, citing their role in emerging from the Dark Ages via the printing press and fostering empathy to create a “kinder, gentler” world. He credits books with transforming his own life, propelling him from a challenging background to a successful career. While acknowledging AI’s potential to transform, he firmly believes books have a greater, more enduring impact.
Conclusion
Baldacci concludes by urging stronger protections for authors’ intellectual property, emphasizing the injustice of AI companies profiting from stolen creative work while authors receive no compensation. His testimony is a passionate defense of the creative process, the value of human-crafted stories, and the need for fair copyright laws in the face of advancing AI technologies.
This summary captures the key points of Baldacci’s testimony, highlighting his personal experiences, critiques of AI practices, and broader concerns about the impact on authors and the publishing industry.
Notice his stupid appeal to emotions and how it “feels”–when an AI mimics his style he “felt like” it was theft. Even though nothing was “taken” from him despite his disingenuous use of that term.1 Just after he says he used to go to the library and was able to read books and thus “visit” other places… yet of course if the IP and copyright fascists had their way, libraries would be banned too.2 His stupid whine about how an AI learning from him is like “backing up a truck to my imagination and stealing everything I’d ever created” reminds me of the absurd argument for copyright made regarding Dickens by other clueless illilberal supporters of IP:
It is true that other means exist for creative people to profit from their effort. In the case of copyright, authors can charge fees for reading their works to paying audiences. Charles Dickens did this, but his heavy schedule of public performances in the United States, where his works were not protected by copyright, arguably contributed to his untimely death. —Willliam Shughart3
Suck it up, buttercup. As I wrote previously, quoting Wendy McElroy:
Tucker and the other contributors to Liberty who rejected intellectual property as a natural right were not hostile to copyright or patent enforced by contract. Nor did they deny a man’s absolute right to exclusively use whatever ideas he privately held. The point at which this exclusivity was lost, however, came when the idea was communicated without the protection of contract. Tucker insisted that a man who wrote in the public realm abandoned all claim to his property just as a man who spoke publicly abandoned claim to his spoken words.
The natural-rights side contended that the law must presume something to be property so long as it was valuable. If an idea had value, then it was presumed to be property whether publicly expressed or not. By contrast, Tucker advanced a theory of abandonment. That is, if a man publicized an idea without the protection of a contract, then he was presumed to be abandoning his exclusive claim to that idea.
If a man scatters money in the street, he does not thereby formally relinquish title to it … but those who pick it up are thereafter considered the rightful owners…. Similarly a man who reproduces his writings by thousands and spreads them everywhere voluntarily abandons his right of privacy and those who read them … no more put themselves by the act under any obligation in regard to the author than those who pick up scattered money put themselves under obligations to the scatterer.4
Perhaps the essence of Tucker’s approach to intellectual property was best expressed when he exclaimed, “You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself.”5
There are other elements of theft and or unfair behavior that too often go unremarked in the “AI conversation.” The technology itself is engineered through political choices. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on AI and copyright, showing how firms like Meta steal the intellectual work of authors and exploit it, without compensation. And I don’t mean they buy the books and feed them into a learning algorithm, they literally used pirated work to train their model, which their own employees question as possibly illegal.
Here’s novelist and former trial lawyer David Baldacci explaining how OpenAI, in his words, “backed up a truck to his imagination and stole everything he ever created.” These services now spit out novels that read as if they were written by Baldacci, with similar plots, dialogues, and even character names. This dynamic is broader than just one novelist; the number of cheap knock-offs is so high that online vendors are now putting weekly limits on how many books one individual is allowed to “publish.” I highly recommend watching Baldacci, who is quite persuasive. He’s a man whose job isn’t being replaced, so much as his work is being stolen. And that’s a political and legal choice about how we design the technology itself.
Midjourney Denies Universal and Disney Claims of Rampant Infringement – On Thursday, August 7, AI platform Midjourney responded to a lawsuit brought against it by Disney Enterprises and Universal City Studios Productions, hitting back at the movie studios’ accusation that Midjourney is a “bottomless pit of plagiarism.” The AI company said that Midjourney works much like “humans learn to draw or paint—not by memorizing individual artworks, but by internalizing patterns and techniques through repeated exposure and practice.” The brief also said the platform cannot be held liable for infringing uses by its users. While users “are required by Midjourney’s Terms of Service to refrain from infringing the intellectual property rights of others, including Plaintiffs’ rights, Midjourney does not presuppose and cannot know whether any particular image is infringing absent notice from a copyright owner and information regarding how the image is used,” said the brief.
Based on the Anthropic settlement of at least $1.5 billion for approximately 500,000 copyrighted books (equating to roughly $3,000 per work in compensation), AI companies train their models on vast datasets that often include unlicensed content from multiple sources beyond books, such as news articles, images, photographs, software code, music lyrics, and other media. These datasets can encompass hundreds of thousands to billions of individual works, scraped from the web, shadow libraries, or other repositories.
Assuming statutory damages (primarily under U.S. law, where they range from $750 to $30,000 per work for non-willful infringement, or up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement), and extending this to worldwide claims (though many jurisdictions use actual damages rather than statutory, leading to variability), the potential liability scales dramatically with the number of works and classes of holders (e.g., journalists, photographers, musicians, publishers, and developers).
Key factors in the estimate:
Number of works: Books might involve 500,000–10 million items; images/photographs could reach 100 million–5 billion; articles and web content often hit billions; music or code repositories add millions more.
Per-work damages: Courts could award minimums for bulk cases or maximums if willful infringement is proven.
Other classes: Beyond books, suits from image libraries (e.g., Getty’s claims), news outlets (e.g., NYT’s suit alleging millions of articles), and music labels (e.g., for lyrics or samples) multiply exposure.
Mitigations: Fair use defenses, settlements, or international variations could reduce awards, but the query assumes infringement with statutory damages applied.
Low-end estimate (fewer works, lower per-work awards like $750–$3,000, focused on major classes like books/articles/images, with settlements capping totals): $10 billion to $100 billion.
Mid-range estimate (broader datasets with 10–100 million works across classes, average awards of $10,000–$30,000 per work): $100 billion to $1 trillion.
High-end estimate (maximum statutory $150,000 per work, applied to billions of items if all classes pursue claims worldwide, akin to how everyday infringements balloon to millions in theoretical liability per Tehranian’s analysis): $1 trillion to $10 trillion or more.
These figures represent theoretical exposure before defenses or negotiations, illustrating how AI training on unlicensed data could lead to cascading liabilities similar to the exaggerated “infringement nation” scenario where minor violations accumulate exponentially. In practice, courts and settlements (like Anthropic’s) often result in far lower payouts.
As of early September 2025, Anthropic has agreed to pay a landmark $1.5 billion in a U.S. class-action settlement—about $3,000 per book, covering roughly 500,000 works (with potential to rise) WIREDAP NewsFinancial Times. Before the settlement, a U.S. court had affirmed that statutory damages for willful willful copyright infringement could reach up to $150,000 per workThe GuardianReutersWikipedia. In fact, the potential exposure to damages was once projected in the trillions of dollars, which could have bankrupted the company had the case gone to trial Financial TimesWIREDThe Guardian.
2. Theoretical Public Infringement Liability – Tehranian’s “Infringement Nation”
John Tehranian’s 2011 thought experiment illustrates an extreme scenario: even typical daily activities could result in $4.5 billion per year in liabilities for a single person—without peer-to-peer file sharing C4SIF.org. Stephan Kinsella notes that for more active Internet users, “liability per person” could balloon to $50 billion annually, and multiplied across users, liabilities could reach the quadrillions or moreC4SIF.org.
While this is clearly hypothetical and involves maximum-damage assumptions, it demonstrates how statutory damages per act can produce astronomical sums when aggregated.
3. Estimating Global AI Company Liability
Combining insights from the Anthropic case and Tehranian’s theoretical model allows us to sketch plausible ranges for AI companies facing copyright infringement claims worldwide—depending on the count of works involved, the statutory damage frameworks of different jurisdictions, and whether cases involve willful infringement.
United States
Minor exposure: If a company infringes, say, 10,000 works, at a modest $750 per work, exposure = $7.5 million.
Typical: At $30,000 per work, same 10,000 works = $300 million.
Willful scenario: At $150,000 per work, 100,000 works = $15 billion.
Anthropic settled at $3,000 per work, significantly below maximum, likely to avoid catastrophic risk.
Other Jurisdictions
Many countries (e.g., EU under Directive 2004/48/EC) base statutory damages on hypothetical royalties rather than fixed statutory caps Wikipedia.
New EU AI Act (effective August 2025) strengthens rights-holder control over data-mining, though specific damages frameworks remain developing Wikipedia.
UK and India currently lack clear statutory per-work caps, but rights-holders could still seek significant remedies, possibly modeled on U.S. benchmarks.
Moral and Aggregated Liability
Under Tehranian’s model, even minor everyday reproductions could amount to many billions per person per year, implying that a corporate AI operator, with massive ingestion and storage of copyrighted works, could—if fully enforced—face liabilities in the tens or hundreds of billions, or even trillions, on paper C4SIF.org.
In practice, courts cap damages realistically (e.g., Anthropic avoided the $1 trillion figure by settling at $1.5 billion) Financial TimesWIREDThe Guardian.
4. Summary Range Estimates for AI Companies
Here’s an actionable estimate range for potential global statutory-damages-based copyright liability:
Hundreds of billions to trillions (theoretical, unlikely enforced)
Final Thoughts
The Anthropic $1.5 billion settlement sets a real-world precedent: AI companies may expect to negotiate per-work settlements at $3,000–$10,000 for large corpuses.
Courts in the U.S. retain the authority to impose up to $150,000 per work, but such cases are rarely pursued to that ceiling.
Globally, damages frameworks vary, and many jurisdictions rely on royalty multipliers rather than fixed amounts.
Tehranian’s “Infringement Nation” underscores how rigid statutory systems can produce absurd liabilities if taken literally—but real-world outcomes lean strongly toward compromise and proportionality.
As I’ve noted before, one of my future projects is to write a new book on IP from the ground up presenting a comprehensive case against IP based on all my previous writing, research, and arguments. (I am currently completing “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” a chapter for a forthcoming book,1 and plan to start the new book after this is done.
One possible title for my book is Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property, a nod to Abbie Hoffman’s famous Steal This Book (1971). My title implicitly recognizes that copying a book is not stealing (and I will release it open and free online with no copyright protection), while Hoffman’s is hypocritical since, as a lefty, he presumably opposes capitalism and private property rights, all while publishing under copyright and for profit leading to disputes over royalties between Hoffman and two contributors to the book. [continue reading…]
Stephan Kinsella, “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Christoph Lütge & Marianne Thejls Ziegler, eds. (Springer, forthcoming 2025; Robert McGee, section ed.), update of “The Case Against Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics (Prof. Dr. Christoph Lütge, ed.; Springer, 2013) (chapter 68, in Part 18, “Property Rights: Material and Intellectual,” Robert McGee, section ed.) [↩]
All articles in the Journal of the Academy of Public Heath [sic] are open access and freely available for anyone to read. They are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, permitting its broad reuse and distribution so long as appropriate source and author attributions are made.
Replying to a previous tweet, which stated: “All property is fundamentally intellectual.” This is the Objectivist bait and switch. All property involves the intellect–the mind, rationality, decisions, ideas. Sure. All property involves labor too. Why not say all property is labor? You need to start with a definition. What do you mean by property? [continue reading…]
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.
(
Follow Us!