How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism | Stephan Kinsella



it is truly an honor to be here today the supporter summit its Doug did mention I will be teaching a Mises Academy course starting in November and as Jeff Tucker mentioned yesterday it does have some advantages over to a normal classroom and being in person one of the advantages would be that unlike today I won't have gone out the night before and have a hangover induced by Bob Murphy and Tom DiLorenzo and I noticed they're not here or at least I hope not it'll be Monday evenings at 6:30 from my home in Houston so let's hope I don't have a hangover then I've actually got my seven-year-old watching right now from home in Houston and I had to promise him I'd say hello Ethan and my parents in Prairie Village as well the magic of the Internet but as a Doug mentioned I am a registered patent attorney I trying to do very many patents anymore I find it a little bit distasteful it's also not it's not the most enjoyable profession to have when you mention to people that you're a patent attorney they always want to tell you they're their inventions you know they you know I was like sitting on the plane and some guys like what do you do it's a I'm a patent lawyer he's like oh let me tell you about the the time I invented one click before Amazon patented it you know and thinking oh god I got a three hour flight with this guy you know maybe I should have told him I was her product ologist but I I guess I could have actually been worse so David that's joke one I say for you for today so today I'm gonna what I'm gonna argue is that intellectual property is incompatible with capitalism now the word capitalism itself might need a little bit of clarification because in recent years some fellow advocates of the free-market and free society have said they are they're in opposition to capitalism I think it's basically a semantic dispute what they're what they're opposed to is what we would refer to as say corporatism or mercantilism or crony capitalism or capitalism as the Western governments portray it so you have this sort of funny situation where we're in favor of capitalism by which we mean private property and we're against or I'm against intellectual property left libertarians or against capitalism and they're against intellectual property and regular leftists believe that intellectual property is a legitimate type of property right and they're against it for that reason so you know they're all over the map which reminds me of my second joke David so this is inspired by the rise of the late 19th century of anarchist philosopher proton and so the joke is why don't anarchists drink why do you anarchists drink herbal tea because property is theft all right off of the joke sorry Doug so why do I say that uh intellectual property is opposed to capitalism are not product not part of a legitimate property rights free free free market system why don't we just step back and let's consider some cases where the Western governments supposedly representatives of capitalism right have tried to impose capitalism on the rest of the world trying to bring more backwards countries into the fold right of an advanced economy what have we given them what have we told them to do what have we twisted their arms and tried to force upon them well there's income tax withholding right and we know that we know that's capitalist because Milton Friedman suggested it antitrust law American antitrust law anti-bribery laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which we have here which penalizes American businessmen from engaging in what's a regular business practices in other parts of the world and puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to companies from other countries which are not so impede 'add leading of course to America to force treaties upon the rest of the world to get other countries to also ban bribery in their country so that Americans wouldn't be as harmed by these laws central banking we've imposed central banking us-style on the rest of the world Canada in the 1930s Russia after the fall of communism what about state ownership of natural resources is that capitalist that's what we have here in America on state lands and I used to be an oil and gas lawyer before I went to the dark side on state lands in America unlike anywhere else in the world that I'm aware of minerals underneath land are privately owned as it should be all right but everywhere else every other country and even outside the states in America like offshore where the BP accident happened the MMS that minerals management service the federal government basically claims ownership of the minerals under the ground and then they grant leases and they take a cut alright so actually the landlord of the BP disaster was the federal government but you don't see them taking up taking the blame for it so what do we do we impose the system on other countries to Iraq after after after we overthrew out the American government overthrew Saddam Hussein you know they're encouraging them to do this the American model there is that capitalist to have the government of Iraq own the resources and and and sell the oil to to to customers of course there is manage to just drug laws to would we allow Mexico for example to legalize narcotics would we put up with that there's managed trade terms of NAFTA agreements like this and then of course the Marshall Plan after world war two and democracy itself which arguably and in my opinion is not capitalist not not compatible to property rights so we have cases of America and the West pressuring other countries to adopt so-called capitalist measures routinely in the name of capitalism but these are not capitalist now what about intellectual property we have a similar situation we have America and its Lackey the World Trade Organization pressuring other countries like Russia India China to adopt our draconian IP laws right China is now actually coming coming in to shape a little bit they're now third in place behind Japan and America in terms of patent filings was a radical shift from five or ten years ago due to American pressure where we have diplomatic pressure being exerted on Canada right now to to adopt some of our copyright provisions that are in our Digital Millennium Copyright Act which make IP law much much worse and more draconian and even worse right now impending is the secretive anti anti-counterfeiting trade agreement or ACTA it's a it's a treaty that's being negotiated right now I suspect it will it will pass probably this year and it's going to be horrible it's going to impose patent and copyright type protections around the world including Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA type provisions and as science fiction author Cory Doctorow observed it's a the act is a radical rewriting of the world's internet laws taking place in secret without public input so maybe we got it right this time maybe you know anti-bribery laws tax laws antitrust laws these are not really capitalist but maybe this one case of IP law is really capitalist maybe it's compatible property rights maybe it's a good thing that the American government is trying to force other countries to a job our way of doing business maybe we got it right but let's think about where did it actually come from where did the intellectual property come from and by intellectual property I'm primarily referring to patent and copyright these are the two big culprits in my opinion there are others there's trade secrets there's trademarks there's reputation rights there's both whole designs there's semiconductor mask work protection but the big two when the big two are a patent and copyright where do they come from well patents they but they both basically came from sovereigns or monarchs issuing monopolies to favored people to get to get them indebted to the sovereign basically there were exclusive monopolies that protected various goods and services for a limited period of time so they were monopolies the word patent actually as a historian of Patricia seed notes the word patent comes from the latin patent a signifying open as this distinct two closed letters or private letters so there are open letters granted by the monarch that gave someone authorization to do something like to be the only person to sell certain good in a certain area and here's something interesting I came across recently letters patent one of the early uses of the letters patent in the 1500s was granting authority to pirates real pirates not Pirates to become privateers which is just legalized piracy and say one oh so you gave them a monopoly over the spoils of their piracy for some period of time this is where patents originated a famous example was Francis Drake some people say Sir Francis Drake but as he was a slaver I don't call him Sir he was given a letter patent on 15 March 1587 it authorized him to engage in piracy and he attacks Spanish ships sailing back from South America laden with silver all the treasures back home to the Queen and he was famous for this so if you think about it what's ironic is that you have defenders of intellectual property attacking pirates today who are not really pirates I mean real pirates come aboard your ship kill people right things take things make you worse off right so they basically accuse people that share information of being pirates when the original ironically one of the original uses of patents was to authorize real piracy okay and it's it's a little bit amusing you'll find defenders of intellectual property some patent lawyers and even some libertarians and they get really indignant if you call it a monopoly it's not a monopoly it's a property right if it's a monopoly then you know your use of your of your car your cars a monopoly well one of the first patent statutes was England's a statute of monopolies 1624 you know they didn't really mean in swards back then you we remember we used to have a department of war in America now it's the Department of Defense right the old status were much better they were more honest right but this patent statute in England the statute of monopolies with it was a way to raise money for the crown without having to impose a tax they sold these monopoly grants by charging fees to people for applying and what it did was it helps cement political loyalty so what happened was and this was a from from a correspondence to have a Jeff Tucker talking about this so the monarchs what they wanted we had growing trade at the time and in in the 1600s so the monarchs wanted credit for this growing trade right so they wanted to say we can take credit for this we're granting these patents and then the producers of these goods they wanted to they wanted not to be looted and they wanted protection from competition so they did this deal and they both everyone was great everyone everyone benefited except for the consumer right so in other words the merchants were afraid of being looted by the King so they took this deal so like monopoly they joined the state to keep the enemy close now today what we've done is we've democratized or we've institutionalized intellectual property so anyone can apply you don't have to go to the king you can just go to the Patent Office but you see a same thing happening now you see companies like my company applying for patents because you have to to keep the wolves at bay in other words if you don't have patents someone might sue you or might steal your ideas so you have all these companies spending millions of dollars to obtain obtained patents just to have a weapon to fire back against someone who might sue you with their patents now of course what happens is the large companies get together and they sue each other they rattle their sabers and then they make a deal right they cross license to each other so you know Microsoft and Apple might sue and then they'll finally both have a large patent or Arsenal's so they'll finally compromise and settle and they'll say okay okay okay you know maybe you pay me some money maybe I pay you some money but then going forward we each get the right to use each other's patents well that's fine for them but that means they both have protection from each other's competition but what is it do these little companies little companies don't have big patent arsenals they can't jump over this hurdle they can't get into the club so the patents basically amount to a barrier to entry a mercantilist type of protectionism all right what about copyright the the roots of copyright literally lie in censorship so you had these guilds sorted arising when printing became easier right and the church and the government started getting worried oh we can't control official and political thought as easily now we can't we can't control what is approved thought so they pass the copyright statutes to basically help limit what what could be produced and said and what what information people could copy and share with each other and the first full-fledged copyright statute was the statute of n in England in 1709 now if you want to go back a little bit farther you can go all the way to 500 BC in a in Greece the ancient and ancient Greece Phineas the Greek city of Sybaris re located in what's now southern Italy there were annual culinary competitions and the victor was given the exclusive right to prepare his dish for one year and it's it's you know I always think that it's great that we had this law otherwise we wouldn't we wouldn't have had any innovation in food in the last twenty five hundred years now if you want to turn to the modern type of IP the American system two hundred and some-odd years ago basically it started in with the American Constitution seventeen adopted in 1789 article 1 section 8 Clause 800 eise's Congress doesn't require them to but it allows them to promote the progress of science in the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries so basically this is the authorization for modern patent copyright law and unlike some opponents of IP law I don't think it's unconstitutional it actually is constitutional so with slavery doesn't make it right you'll notice it's what's interesting about that is the word science and the useful arts is used and most people nowadays think well science is patents useful arts is artistic creations like copyright but it's actually the opposite it was more archaic language used back then and useful arts meant artisans like crafts so it meant producers goods and inventions and science was a more broad term back then it meant all knowledge including artistic knowledge and creations so actually science had to do with copyright and useful arts had to do with with patents be that as it may what is interesting is that despite common arguments for IP by the people in favor of it the founders of the Constitution and you can tell from the language did not view intellectual property as a natural right they viewed it merely as sort of a Prudential measure it's just a a policy tool they thought they could encourage innovation with this that's why they gave it just for a limited time they were nervous about it Thomas Jefferson was the first patent commissioner ironically was very queasy about the idea of granting these monopolies but they knew they were monopolies they granted them consciously even Locke did not view copyright and patent as natural rights even Locke did not believe and whose writing influenced the founding fathers by the way Locke did not believe that his homesteading idea extended to ideas it only extended to scarce resources now it is true that sometimes there were little versions of copyright and things like this in some of the state constitutions before the American Constitution and on occasion language of natural rights was used to defend them well this was just cover in other words they were granting monopolies to special interest and they wanted to hide that fact so they called it natural rights to cover it up clearly it's not a natural right natural rights wouldn't expire after 15 years natural rights wouldn't be extended only to Americans which they were natural rights wouldn't exclude lots of types of creations and only cover some enumerated types it's clearly a policy tool and the civil right so we have this modern federal statute administered by a huge federal bureaucracy granting monopolies to Americans who apply allow them to go to the federal courts to ask the federal court to use federal force against their competitors who are doing what they're using information to guide the use of their actions there they're peaceful people their competitors can we really think this is capitalist there are any number of examples like given I won't run through them here they get tedious I mean there's there's daily examples of outrages and horror stories crazy patent lawsuits crazy copyright lawsuits crazy patents granted from on a daily basis of course these are not the problem the problem is that even if you get a patent legitimately you can use it to use the force of the government against your competitor I will mention one example one outcome of IP law which is particularly egregious with respect to copyright and how it can be used to actually censor thought which shouldn't be surprising since its roots are in censorship as I mentioned but it literally has led to censorship even recently I'll just give you a couple of examples here so this was just a month or so ago in the news Russian authorities were using the pretext of intellectual property piracy and violations as a pretext for seizing the computers and other materials from political opponents of the government okay so they were using IP to crack down on on political opponents and dissidents Susan Boyle you might remember her from Britain's Got Talent you know the singer from England she was literally prevented from singing a Lulu Reed song on some show the other day because of copyright she couldn't sing it she couldn't use her mouth to perform certain actions in Germany there's a group of newspaper publishers they're lobbying for a new exclusive right conferring the power to monopolize speech in other words assigning the right to reuse a particular wording in the headline of a news article anywhere else without the permission of the holder so you can't even they want to monopolize the right to you to the title of an article there is an actual case where there's a German silent film NOS terre – it was deemed a derivative work of dracula and the courts ordered all copies destroyed this is literally true in the worst case in my opinion is of the author JD Salinger of Catcher in the Rye the the one that of all the all the the psychos read so there was that there was a novel called 60 years later coming through the Rye sort of a derivative work write a parody or a follow up well he got the courts to to ban the publication of that book based on copyright I mean it's just banned this is literally modern equivalent a book burning due to copyright law now you tell me how this can be justified by libertarians so I'll give you a couple of some of the best arguments I've heard for an emotional property from from from from advocates of intellectual property there's a there's a philosopher named David Koepp soul who's a good libertarian of philosopher and professor and he's an anti intellectual property theorist and he had argued on in an online debate that he pointed out that in the 19th and early 20th centuries two of the most innovative countries on earth which was were the Netherlands in Switzerland had no patent systems at all due to legislative anomalies they actually didn't have a patent system for a while but they they had tons of innovation despite this so he was giving this argument and this is patent attorney named Jean Quinn who's a regular patent shill and he wrote this thank goodness the Swiss did have a patent office this is that is where Albert Einstein worked and during this time as a patent examiner he came up with a theory of relativity so we need to have patent so we'll have a patent office so that will employ potential future physicists I came across this argument by a free-market economist riding on a website in the last year a senior fellow with with a free-market think-tank and he said it's true that other means exists for creative people to profit from their effort and he was arguing in favor of IP he said in the case of copyright authors can charge fees for reading their works to pay audiences Charles Dickens did this but his heavy schedule of public performance in the United States where his works were not protected by copyright arguably contributed to his untimely death we have to look out for Dickens we don't we don't to kill people by not having copyright law to protect their interests and this this author also he observed he said to paraphrase the late economist Joan Robinson patents and copyrights slowed down the diffusion of new ideas for a reason to assure there will be more new ideas to diffuse now this is an advocate of IP he thinks this as an argument for IP he's actually admitting that copyright slows down new ideas and their diffusion it reminds me of modern economists who talked about and all these scientistic metaphors about the economy right we need to cool down an overheating economy right basketball games have momentum all these scientistic terms so but more seriously the basic utilitarian argument which is the common one among libertarians is this just assumption which the founding fathers had this assumption that if we have the government grant these monopolies on certain types of innovation we'll get more of it and we'll all be better off right basically net wealth will be created this is their argument but they rarely make it this explicit because if they made it explicit they would have to they would have to give us numbers right know that their argument is that it creates wealth well how much wealth tell me how much so there is no doubt that the patent system for example imposes costs in society I've estimated it cost thirty eight to two forty eight billion dollars a year that's just my off-the-cuff estimate and that's annually in America alone just the patent system okay so it imposes costs my salary litigation costs insurance higher costs for products so if you're going to argue that patents impose a net gain on society you need to tell me well tell me what the cost is tell me what the net gain is subtract from it certain types of innovation that are now suppressed there's no doubt that some innovation is lost because of patents even if some innovation is gained some is lost so we need to know the net they never give you these answers they don't know if you ask them they just change the subject I have yet to meet person who argues its way all the studies that I've seen no I'm not an empiricist I'm not a utilitarian but this is their argument and every study that people come up with is either inconclusive they say well we just can't figure it out we don't know which is probably the proper answer because values are subjective and and and ordinal not cardinal right we cannot really sum up these things but all the attempts to do so using conventional methods they either conclude that the copyright or patent system actually imposes a net cost in society and it decreases innovation so it's like there's a double penalty right or the or they say what we can't we can't prove it one way or the other so you would think that if you were a utilitarian you would conclude from this we should be against patent law and copyright law right we know that it's an infringement on Liberty we know that it's costly and we have no evidence to back up our utilitarian hunch which the founders had that it might be a net gain so until someone can satisfy their burden of proof we should oppose it but no they're they're in favor of it and in fact you know you could ask so their argument is that well some of you you wouldn't you wouldn't make this drug if you didn't have the incentive by the government now let's think about this here we have the federal government which imposes probably if you add it all up 50% taxes on average on people which work at these companies and who are their customers taxes the corporation's imposes FDA regulations and delays on them imposes other monopolies in through the FDA which are like like the patent system regulates these companies to death imposes all kinds of costs on them now you want to you want to empower this agency this criminal agency that does everything it can to destroy business you want to empower them to grant you selected monopolies to people to allow them to charge a little bit of monopoly price on the market to make up some what for all the damage the government's doing you I wouldn't trust this agency to do it for me right how about how about they drop the taxes how about they stop the regulations how about they abolish the FDA and then these companies every one be eight times richer and they would have a lot more money to invest in search so I will conclude there and I would just say that I think it's clear that capitalism is not compatible with ontological property thank you you




Comments
  1. There you have it folks 5:32

    "… and democracy itself (…) is not capitalist and not compatible with property rights"

    Five minutes in and you already get an antidemocratic stance.

  2. I always pretend to he deaf if I fly next to a talker… works well until i forgot once and asked the woman who i'd spurned to get the attention of the flight attendant.

  3. That thing about that people had to burn copies because of copyright made me think "no….". What if someone made an entire car and then it was a pirate copy of someones patent, and that person would have to destroy that car (or not use, or only use it privately). Your literally destroying culture and wealth.

    I also think that there's a difference of producing something and owning something. Aka someone who creates some intellectual property is the producer of the idea, but if you sell that idea or share it with someone, then you don't own it anymore, or you're not the sole owner. Like someone can produce an apple and sell it or give it away, and thereby not being the owner of it. If I create a song, then I'm the composer of that song. Does that mean I own the song? Yes. Does that mean that anybody else can't own it? No. If I play my song or teach someone my song, then that person could learn it and then own the knowledge about the song, therefore owning it.

  4. how did you get from patents to FDA at the end?
    that could be a topic for another day 🙂
    and i wouldn't put patent laws and health regulations in the same basket.

  5. Wouldn't this hold-back innovations? Why should I bust my ass inventing something if some company can just swoop in and build it?

  6. This is slippery slope. By denying the concept of intellectual property, you can go on to demonize Finance based capitalism and finally the private property in anything except human beings. This means communism/socialism. Tesla might have sold some of his patents i.e., IPRs, but he also earned millions of dollars from it. He deserved the credit for that. I don't know why some people who call themselves libertarians oppose the concept of property i.e., ownership in anything.

  7. Only factors supplied by human effort can be private property. Ideas exist in Platonic space. Land is supplied by nature or God.

    Thus , while Land and ideas can be discovered, they are not created or invented by humans.

    Of course discovery should be rewarded, and their are many mechanisms for this to happen without giving those discoverers the right to exclude others from which they didn't create.

  8. IP fucks consumers and kills innovation and progression by letting the de facto monopolist to milk a single cash cow rather than having to compete to make more money

  9. I like the ideas but can someone explain me if the inventor of a product isnt given a monopoly for a short period of time, how can that company cover their costs of developing the invention? Wouldnt competing companies just copy the invention right as it enters the market and of course since they didnt have any developement costs they could go for a lower price? And eventually hurting the inventor company and discouraging inventing and encouraging copying a product and devaluing it? I'm not trying to prove any statist opinions I sincerely dont understand it. Please tell me if I'm being economically illiterate cause I would love to get llluminated in this topic.

  10. The question of monopoly is a red herring. You have a monopoly on your body, and that's a good thing. The real question is – can you use violence against others to prevent them from doing (insert action) with their own property. If I choose to arrange my atoms in a way that I saw you arrange those atoms, I'm not committing violence. BUT you enforcing your OPINION of how I should arrange my atoms you ARE committing violence (via the state) – – and thereby committing a FAR MORE egregious action than me.

  11. I really really sympathize with AnCap philosophy, but lately I can't seem to get over the concern that this will all lead to some type of neo-feudalism. I guess my problem is that I can't seem to make a moral decision on the most basic point in all this, the legitimacy of private property and how far its justification would intellectually take me or not take me. When he mentions all minerals should be privately owned, I just honestly feel concern over that.

    These are questions I ask myself, and cannot answer: Why does one man have a right to tell another man he can't walk upon a part of the earth? If I draw a line in front of me, while wielding a gun, and post a sign saying anyone who crosses that line will be shot, who is the one committing aggression – the 'trespasser', or me the 'property owner'? Communalism is just a disaster, though, and it seems like both sides of the argument are destined to be horrible either way. We can't ethically share what is here on earth (as we've already shown over and over) and we can't morally withhold from others.

    I just want to be left alone and AnCap (and AnPac) are the closest thing I find to that. But the consumerism, materialism, greed, and 'ambition' that comes with egotistical humans in the marketplace is not something I can support happily, either. Really all I become more convinced of as the years go by, and I read more and more, is that life is completely absurd and there very well might not be any good, or even reasonable, solutions to many of our problems.

    Sorry if this is just rambling.

  12. HELLO,
    PLEASE I NEED YOUR HELP
    I AM NOELLE BIZI BAZOUMA a.k.a bizbanoelle. FACING AN INCREDIBLE AND UNPRECEDENTED OPPRESSIVE INJUSTICE ABOUT MY VIDEOS WITHOUT KNOWING WHY; I PUBLICLY OPPOSE ANYONE TO EXPLOIT THEM WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. FOR GOD SAKE, THEY ARE THE PAINFUL FRUITS OF MY INTELLECTUAL LABOR.
    I OPENLY WONDER WHY PEOPLE ARE MAKING MONEY OUT OF MY VIDEOS, WHEN THE AUTHOR IS ALIVE AND BEING DENIED HER BASIC RIGHTS. WHY, WHY, WHY and WHY??? IF MY VIDEOS ARE VIOLATING ANY FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR ANY RIGHTS, I JUST WANT TO RECEIVE A OFFICIAL LETTER TELLING ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM. BECAUSE, MY VIDEOS WERE NOT MEANT TO CAUSE TROUBLES. SO FAR, I HAVE WATCHED MANY VIDEOS THAT EXPOSE THE TRUTH OF THE EXPLOITATION OF AFRICA IN MORE TRAGIC WAYS THAN I DID. AND THOSE VIDEOS CONTINUE TO RUN IN YOU TUBE WITHOUT ANY BOTHER. THEREFORE, WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY VIDEOS OR MY PERSON? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, PLEASE. PLEASE LET US SHOW SOME COMMON HUMANITY AND RESPECT.
    I AM AN ARTIST, AND ALL MY LITERATURE VIDEOS ARE MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES AND LITERARY PROPERTIES. IT IS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT I AM THE AUTHENTIC AUTHOR OF MY VIDEOS. THIS IS A PUBLIC ANNOUNCE; IF JUSTICE DOES REALLY EXIST, I WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY VIDEOS, MY ARTWORK FOR ALMOST SIX YEARS. ALMOST SIX YEARS OF LABOR!!! AM I AN UNAWARE INTELLECTUAL SLAVE? IF SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW, OFFICIALLY. WHY MY VIDEOS ARE A PROBLEM NOW; WHY NOT SIX (6) YEARS BACK? WHY DON'T I RECEIVE ANY ANSWER DESPITE ALL MY PUBLIC CLAIMS THROUGH LETTERS AND WHATEVER MEANS USED TO VOICE MY GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS? I WANT THE ISSUE TO BE OFFICIALLY CLEARED UP; BECAUSE I AM THE AUTHOR OF THE VIDEOS; AND IT IS MY LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM. MY WORRY IS MOSTLY JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT MY VIDEOS HAVE BEEN ALREADY TRANSFORMED INTO HORSE SPOTTED VIDEOS INSTEAD OF bizbanoelle VIDEOS. SO, THERE IS AN AUTHOR-HOOD ISSUE. THE REASON WHY I FEEL VERY CONCERNED NOW. I FEEL LIKE, ANYTIME THEY COULD TAKE ANOTHER NAME AGAIN AND DENIED ME DEFINITELY MY AUTHOR-HOOD. I HOPE THERE IS JUSTICE FOR ALL IN THIS BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY. I DEEPLY HOPE THERE IS ONE, AND I AM NOT WRONG ABOUT IT.
    Noelle Bizi Bazouma a.k.a bizbanoelle.

  13. Any argument you make against intellectual property rights you could also make against other kinds of property rights. Property rights exist purely because there is a a government to enforce them, otherwise all you have is what you can hold by the barrel of a gun.

    Intellectual property rights are entirely just: Imagine a song-writer spends ten years learning music and perfecting their craft. They write a great song that is very popular. Without IP rights bootleggers take the recording, and resell copies of it without paying the original writer any royalties. Clearly they have stolen proceeds which would otherwise have gone to the songwriter and without having to make the sacrifice of ten years of hard work. How is that not theft?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *