Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 44:37 — 20.4MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 236.
[Update: a transcript is now available.]
At Libertopia 2012, I delivered a 45-minute talk , “Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP” (Oct. 12, 2012), the slides for which are below. I spoke for 45 minutes—well, 40, then the last 5 were taken up by a question from J. Neil Schulman—but only covered the first 25 slides. I covered most of the remaining 41 in a separate recording, Part 2: KOL237.
Grok summary:
At Libertopia, I also participated in an hour-long IP panel with Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer. It is presented in Part 3, KOL238.
Grok detailed summary
-
Introduction and Libertarian Context (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces his anti-IP stance, framing the lecture as a libertarian critique of fallacious pro-IP arguments.
-
Property Rights and Scarcity (5:01-15:00): Explains that property rights apply to scarce resources, not ideas, using Austrian economics to show IP’s incompatibility with liberty.
-
Debunking Utilitarian and Natural Rights Arguments (15:01-25:00): Critiques claims that IP incentivizes innovation or that creators own ideas, arguing IP creates artificial scarcity.
-
Refuting Reward and Theft Arguments (25:01-35:00): Rejects notions that creators deserve IP rewards or that copying is theft, emphasizing learning’s role in competition.
-
Historical and Practical Flaws of IP (35:01-45:00): Traces IP’s statist origins and highlights its inefficiencies, like litigation, contrasting with IP-free industries.
-
Q&A: Alternatives and Impacts (45:01-54:30): Addresses trade secrets, pharmaceuticals, and anti-IP strategies, reinforcing the case for abolition.
-
Conclusion (54:31-54:42): Urges libertarians to reject IP, promoting a free market of ideas for innovation and liberty.
-
0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Context)
Description: Kinsella opens at Libertopia 2012, introducing himself as a libertarian patent attorney who opposes IP despite his profession (0:00-2:30). He outlines the lecture’s goal: to debunk fallacious arguments for IP using libertarian principles, promising to cover utilitarian, natural rights, and contractual claims (2:31-5:00).
Summary: The block sets the stage, establishing Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and the lecture’s focus on dismantling pro-IP arguments from a libertarian perspective. -
5:01-10:00 (Libertarian Property Rights)
Description: Kinsella explains libertarian property rights, rooted in Austrian economics, where ownership applies to scarce, rivalrous resources (e.g., a hammer) to avoid conflict (5:01-7:45). He contrasts this with ideas, which are non-scarce and can be shared without loss, arguing IP is unnatural (7:46-10:00).
Summary: The theoretical foundation is laid, distinguishing scarce physical resources from non-scarce ideas to challenge IP’s legitimacy in a libertarian framework. -
10:01-15:00 (Scarcity and Human Action)
Description: Kinsella uses Mises’ praxeology to describe human action, where scarce means achieve ends, guided by knowledge (10:01-12:30). He illustrates with a cake recipe, showing that ideas guide action but don’t require ownership, making IP restrictions unjust (12:31-15:00).
Summary: This block clarifies knowledge’s role in action, emphasizing that IP’s artificial scarcity contradicts the free market’s reliance on learning and emulation. -
15:01-20:00 (Utilitarian Argument Critique)
Description: Kinsella critiques the utilitarian claim that IP incentivizes innovation, arguing it creates monopolies that raise costs and limit competition (15:01-17:30). He cites studies showing patents don’t boost innovation, only litigation, and notes IP-free industries like fashion thrive (17:31-20:00).
Summary: The utilitarian justification for IP is debunked, highlighting its negative impact on competition and innovation, a core flaw in pro-IP arguments. -
20:01-25:00 (Natural Rights and Contract Arguments)
Description: Kinsella refutes the natural rights argument that creators own their ideas, using a marble statue example to show creation transforms owned resources, not ideas (20:01-22:45). He dismisses the idea that IP is a contract, as it binds non-parties, violating libertarian principles (22:46-25:00).
Summary: This block dismantles natural rights and contractual justifications for IP, showing they misapply property concepts and infringe on freedom. -
25:01-30:00 (Reward-Based Arguments)
Description: Kinsella critiques the argument that creators deserve IP rewards for their labor, arguing labor doesn’t create property rights—first use does (25:01-27:45). He uses homesteading land to illustrate that ownership stems from scarcity, not effort, making IP rewards unjustified (27:46-30:00).
Summary: The notion that IP rewards labor is rejected, reinforcing that property rights address scarcity, not merit, undermining a common pro-IP claim. -
30:01-35:00 (Theft and Fairness Arguments)
Description: Kinsella refutes the claim that copying ideas is theft, arguing it’s learning, not stealing, as it doesn’t deprive the original owner (30:01-32:30). He dismisses fairness arguments, noting that markets thrive on emulation, not protectionism, citing open-source software (32:31-35:00).
Summary: Copying is defended as essential to competition, debunking theft and fairness arguments as misaligned with libertarian and market principles. -
35:01-40:00 (Historical Origins of IP)
Description: Kinsella traces IP to state monopolies, like the 1623 Statute of Monopolies and 1710 Statute of Anne, rooted in privilege and censorship, not market needs (35:01-37:45). He argues IP’s statist origins show it’s anti-libertarian, favoring corporations over innovators (37:46-40:00).
Summary: IP’s historical roots in statism are exposed, highlighting its incompatibility with free-market principles and its bias toward entrenched interests. -
40:01-45:00 (Practical Flaws of IP)
Description: Kinsella details IP’s practical harms, including high litigation costs, patent trolling, and barriers to innovation, citing pharmaceutical patents raising drug prices (40:01-42:30). He contrasts this with IP-free industries like software, where competition drives progress (42:31-45:00).
Summary: The inefficiencies of IP are outlined, with examples showing it stifles innovation and harms consumers, strengthening the case for abolition. -
45:01-50:00 (Q&A: Alternatives and Pharmaceuticals)
Description: In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses trade secrets, explaining they don’t restrict others’ use of ideas, unlike IP (45:01-47:30). He responds to questions on pharmaceuticals, arguing patents delay access, and cites market incentives like first-mover advantage as alternatives (47:31-50:00).
Summary: The Q&A explores non-IP solutions and IP’s harm in critical industries, reinforcing Kinsella’s vision of a patent-free market. -
50:01-54:30 (Q&A: Strategies and Cultural Impacts)
Description: Kinsella answers questions on libertarian strategies to oppose IP, suggesting education and cultural shifts (50:01-52:30). He discusses IP’s cultural distortions, like limiting artistic remixing, and urges rejection of IP to free creativity (52:31-54:30).
Summary: The Q&A broadens to anti-IP activism and cultural effects, emphasizing the need for a libertarian push against IP’s restrictions. -
54:31-54:42 (Conclusion)
Description: Kinsella concludes by summarizing IP’s fallacious justifications, urging libertarians to reject it as a statist intervention and embrace a free market of ideas (54:31-54:42).
Summary: The lecture ends with a call to action, advocating for intellectual freedom and market efficiency by abolishing IP.
***
This episode covers issues in the first 25 slides, including:
- Overview of case against IP: purpose of property
- patent and copyright: as negative servitudes
- Absurd Arguments for IP
- “Serious” Arguments for IP
- Libertarian Property “Creationism”
- Rand on rearrangement
- Good ideas are scarce!
- IP is just like “property”!
- All property rights are limited/no property rights are “absolute”
- Absolute property rights
- We should “balance” innovation/IP vs. free speech
- Roots of copyright: censorship
- Balance: between copyright and freedom of speech
- Hollywood blockbuster movies vs. Youtube/Internet freedom
- We should “balance” innovation/IP vs. free speech
- IP is not a monopoly!
- Origin of modern patents
- Liberty is good, but not our “only value”
(Previously posted as here: Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012) (Oct. 13, 2012). See also See also: There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property.)
Update: I thought of one more argument that I forgot to cover in the slides and talk. It is the argument made by Silas Barta that (a) some libertarians support rights in airwaves (electromagnetic spectra); but (b) if you support airwave rights you have no basis to object to rights in other nonscarce resources like inventions or patterns of information (see Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property). [Update: See also Silas Barta: The shortest, safest libertarian case [sic] for IP]
There are several problems with this argument. First, not all libertarians support rights in EM spectra. So they are not committed to favor IP rights, even by Barta’s argument.
Second, even if EM spectra ought to be homesteadable, it does not mean that patterns of information ought to be. This is because EM spectra are actually scarce resources, while patterns of information are not. IP proponents typically grudgingly admit, when pressed, that EM spectra are scarce but patterns of information—knowledge—is not, but they then shift to the argument that the monopoly over information leads to a “right to exploit” the monopoly, which leads to acquisition of profit (money), which is a scarce resource. The problem with the latter maneuver is that the profit comes from money voluntarily handed over to a seller by a customer. But the customer owns his money until he chooses to spend it. No other person has any property right claim in other people’s money or, thus, in any possible future income stream or profits.
Third, even if support of airwave property rights were to imply some type of possible rights in information or the right-to-exploit information, it does not imply that legislated IP rights systems like patent and copyright are justified (see, e.g., Legislation and Law in a Free Society). The advocate of an IP system that is somehow compatible with EM spectra rights has the burden of making a positive obligation for this system, and specifying its details. He can’t just say that IP is justified just because some of its opponents favor EM rights or are confused on the EM issue.
Finally, and to complement the previous point: even if you can argue that EM rights are valid, and do somehow impinge on normal property rights in scarce resources (which I disagree with), this does not mean that “anything goes”, that just any limits on property rights in scarce resources are justified (and this is a point I emphasized in the lecture—see slides 14-15, and my posts The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights; IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ). Again, the IP proponent would need to put forth a positive argument for IP rights. It cannot be established by criticizing its critics. As an analogy: suppose someone believes conscription is justified, but also opposes rape. You cannot show that rape is justified just because some people are wrong on conscription; you cannot even show that rape is justified if conscription is justified.
Another argument I sometimes hear is exemplified here:
By such a viewpoint there’s nothing wrong with raiding an online bank account – how can the account holder claim to own something as arcane as electronic digits? People can’t claim to own electricity or numbers hence they can’t claim ownership of so-called electronic money let alone complain when they’re account is gone. For anyone to claim ownership of money it has been made out of a physical medium such as paper or metal, right?
In other words, we all believe it’s wrong to get into someone’s bank account; yet this requires something similar to IP—ownership of nonscarce things. Therefore, if it’s okay to own money in a bank, why not the patterns of information protected by patent and copyright. Well: in a free society, money would be gold, a scarce thing. You don’t need anything IP-like to protect property rights in such scarce resources. Pointing to the fiat money created by the state and related rules hardly justifies the state creating property rights in ideas. Further, even in today’s fiat society world, we can say that it’s a rights violation for someone to access your bank account, because to do that requires accessing scarce resources owned by the bank, and when deception is used, this is fraudulent: the deceptive person gains entry under false pretenses, meaning that the consent given by the bank is not valid, meaning that he is committing a form of trespass. (For more discussion of related issues, see my post Why Spam is Trespass.) (A similar argument is made by Jamie McEwan; see Yeager and Other Letters Re Liberty article “Libertarianism and Intellectual Property”).
About raiding online bank accounts, I don’t think it’s so simple, as was demonstrated by a big “hack”/”exploit”/”legal loophole” in the Ethereum (scam :p) network (which caused the entire network to hard-fork to a new chain or something)… the “hacker” was simply following the protocol, as any hacker does. It’s not obvious what the difference is between “hacking” and picking up money left alone on a park bench.
(It’s also very debatable whether gold would be the money of choice in a free society, compared to bitcoin, so this issue becomes especially relevant.)