My Mises Daily article How We Come To Own Ourselves (Sep. 7, 2006, Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) has been translated into Spanish, by Josep Purroy: Cómo los niños se vuelven dueños de sí mismos.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 038.

[Update: see my post Wenzel the Werewolf; and Robert Wenzel,  “Kinsela [sic] Constantly Insulted Me, Interrupted Me and Broke His Agreement.“, Economic Policy Journal [sic] (May 5, 2014); and idem, “Is This What Kinsella Was Afraid Of?“, Economic Policy Journal [sic] (May 6, 2014)]

Blogger Robert Wenzel and I had a “debate” earlier today about IP, to be jointly put up on my podcast and his Economic Policy Journal “podcast” (it’s on his site at Kinsella Crushed!! and Initial Report on Debate, and mentioned ahead of time several times as linked below). Bob is an Austrian libertarian (I think) blogger but has been criticizing me and Jeff Tucker’s anti-IP views for a few years now (see links below), so we decided to discuss it. ¹

The transcript is available here.

GROK SUMMARY SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL038), recorded on April 1, 2013, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella engages in a contentious two-hour debate with pro-IP libertarian blogger Robert Wenzel on the legitimacy of intellectual property (IP), focusing on patents and copyrights, hosted on Wenzel’s Economic Policy Journal and Kinsella’s podcast (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP violates property rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, using Austrian economics to emphasize that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources, and systematically refutes Wenzel’s circular arguments, as noted in his post-debate commentary on stephankinsella.com. Wenzel, defending IP, relies on metaphors like “stealing” information and claims ownership of a “Drudge formula,” which Kinsella dismantles as service contracts, not property transfers, while Wenzel’s EPJ posts assert he “crushed” Kinsella, focusing on Kinsella’s alleged insults and anger (10:01-1:00:00).

GROK DETAILED SHOWNOTES BELOW

Youtube:

Backup copy:

The discussion went on for over 2 hours. It went about as I expected: he tried to dwell on side points, he refused to—was unable to—even attempt to define IP much less provide a coherent justification for it. He repeatedly engaged in question-begging: calling using information you learn from others “stealing,” which presupposes that there is some owned thing that is stolen. He started out with several bizarre, off-point attacks: for example challenging my claim in my 2001 piece Against Intellectual Property that Rothbard was one of the original libertarian opponents of IP. The entire criticism by Wenzel is bizarre because whether or not I am right in listing Rothbard as an opponent of patent and copyright has nothing to do with whether IP is justified. Further, later in the paper I have an extensive section dealing with Rothbard’s attempt to come up with some kind of contractual scheme that emulated some aspects of IP, which he confusingly calls “copyright.” Some libertarians, like Wenzel, apparently think Rothbard did support copyright (though Wenzel repeatedly equivocates on whether he is talking about state copyright or Rothbard’s private “copyright” scheme), or patent, or something in between, and others say he didn’t. For example  David Gordon writing on LewRockwell.com, in Sam Konkin and Libertarian Theory, observes:

… anti-IP views were very much in the air thirty years ago: Wendy McElroy stands out especially in my mind as a forceful and effective critic of IP. Even earlier, Rothbard had in Man, Economy, and State (1962) favored the replacement of the state system of patents and copyrights with contractual arrangements, freely negotiated. (If one moves outside modern libertarianism, Benjamin Tucker rejected IP well over a century ago as Wendy McElroy has documented in an outstanding article.

Rothbard did not take this “contractual copyright” idea very far and indeed I believe it contradicts other aspects of his thought such as his contract theory (ch. 19 of Ethics of Liberty), his opposition to reputation rights/defamation law (ch. 16), and his explicit opposition to patents (ch. 16, also Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Scholars Edition, pp. liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86).

But anyway, what does it matter? It’s a bizarre appeal to authority. I am quite sure that Rothbard would have agreed with us anti-IP libertarians if he had had more time to sort it out; as I noted, it’s implied in all the structure of his political theory. This is why Hoppe easily saw this by integrating Rothbardian  and Misesian political economic ideas (Hoppe on Intellectual Property). But so what if he would not have? Then he would have been wrong. And so what if I had been wrong in listing Rothbard as an early libertarian opponent of IP (though he arguably was; although as the paper explained later on, his position was not fully fleshed out and/or had ambiguities). How does this prove IP is legitimate? It does not, but Wenzel has no good argument for IP which is why he for over two hours refuses my repeated requests that he provide one—after all, it’s supposed to be a debate about IP. In fact in my opening statement I explained that the burden of proof is on the pro-IP libertarian: to provide a coherent definition of and justification for IP, especially given its statist origins and statist usage today (Where does IP Rank Among the Worst State Laws?). [continue reading…]

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:23:07 — 163.8MB)

1. Note: I failed to record the audio at my end until 1:07:10, but my audio quality was better. So I spliced in the better second half from my recording. So starting at 1:07:10 you can hear better audio quality at my end, and no worse at Wenzel’s. [↩]

Update:

• Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”
• A Recurring Fallacy: “IP is a Purer Form of Property than Material Resources”
• Related:
  • Isaiah Berlin on Locke, Karl Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
  • Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property
  • KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory
  • Rothbard on the Main Fallacy of our Time: Marx’s Labor Theory of Value

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 037. [Transcript.]

I spoke last weekend at the “Liberty in the Pines” (facebook event) conference at Stephen F. Austin State University, in Nacogdoches, Texas. (See “Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Economics and Political Theory,” Liberty in the Pines Conference (March 2013).)

Sponsored by the Young Americans for Liberty chapter and the Charles Koch Foundation, this one-day event brought together liberty-lovers of all stripes from surrounding areas. My speech was “Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory.” Stefan Molyneux and Jeff Tucker appeared and delivered speeches as well (with Jeff’s inspiring keynote resulting in a resounding standing ovation). Walter Block conducted an “Ask a Libertarian” Q&A session (remotely), and relative newcomer Jessica Hughes delivered a surprisingly radical and resounding speech on “The Constitution of Faux Authority.”

Update: See Liberty in the Pines Roundup.

This podcast episode includes my speech and Q&A (about 54 minutes) plus the panel Q&A (about another 50 minutes). The panel Q&A touched on issues like peaceful parenting, spanking, and so on. Not to toot my own horn, but I know I have a lot of a/v material out there, so I do believe this speech of mine is one of the most important I’ve ever done.

Grok shownotes: In this lecture from the Libertarian Papers Audio Series, recorded circa 2010, titled “Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory,” Stephan Kinsella critiques John Locke’s labor theory of property, arguing it introduced a metaphorical and imprecise framework that has distorted political and property rights theory (0:00-5:09). Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney, contrasts Locke’s idea—that mixing labor with unowned resources creates property rights—with the libertarian homesteading principle, which emphasizes first use or appropriation without requiring labor (5:10-15:14). He contends that Locke’s labor metaphor fosters confusion, notably contributing to the flawed concept of intellectual property (IP), which wrongly treats non-scarce ideas as ownable, and connects this to broader errors like the labor theory of value that influenced Marxism (15:15-25:24). Kinsella’s analysis highlights how imprecise language, such as “owning labor,” has led to significant theoretical missteps.

Grok detailed summary below.

Update: Several favorable comments: e.g. “It is a shame how few views this has. I use this video often to help libertarians understand the trap of “self ownership” and I am so glad, now years ago, you fixed this for me in our interview”, “Stephan, this talk is gold. Sharing.”, “This was really helpful. I appreciate and enjoy Kinsella’s focus on using language precisely.”

Update: See Stephen Decker’s report on the event.

Update: See also Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value, discussing International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 246 (1918), where the Supreme Court recognized a quasi-property right in the fruits of one’s labor, what is sometimes called the “sweat of the brow” doctrine (a doctrine later rejected in the copyright context in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

For some background on some of the issues I discussed, see:

• Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic “Labor” Metaphor
• Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and “Rearranging”
• “Locke, Smith, Marx and the Labor Theory of Value,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2010) (archived comments)
• “What Libertarianism Is”
• “How We Come To Own Ourselves“
• “Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism“
• John Bremer, “Education as Peace”

Update: The YouTube at the bottom had inferior audio to the podcast version that I recorded using the iPhone in my pocket. The YouTube immediately below incorporates the superior audio track (thanks to Manuel Lora).

Original YouTube, with inferior audio:

GROK SUMMARY

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:43:51 — 95.1MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 036.

I was a last-minute guest last week for the Rothbardian Circle (substituting for Dan D’Amico), a Miami-based discussion group, for their event “Introduction to Free Markets/Libertarian Theory” (Mar. 20, 2013). We discussed a variety of issues, mostly in a Q&A format, including the essentials of libertarian property theory, Lockean homesteading, Rothbard’s idea of the “relevant technological unit,” the labor theory of property, intellectual property, and other issues.

The event was reported in the article Republicans and Libertarians team up for the Rothbardian Circle.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:05:41 — 60.1MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 035.

This is from my Antiwar Interview: Kinsella on Bill of Rights, Intellectual Property by host Scott Horton (Feb. 11, 2010). We discussed “the federal government’s appropriation of the Bill of Rights – through the 14th Amendment – to regulate state powers, the debate about whether current lawlessness can rightfully be blamed on deviation from the beneficent Constitution or if the problem lies in the deeply flawed document itself and why ideas can’t be property.”

For more on the latter, see the C4SIF Resources page.  For more on constitutional sentimentalism and related issues, see  “Thumbs Down on the Fourth of July” (and posts linked therein) and On Constitutional Sentimentalism.

Antiwar Radio: Stephan Kinsella

***

Antiwar Radio: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella, fellow at the Mises Institute and author of the book Against Intellectual Property [.pdf], discusses the federal government’s appropriation of the Bill of Rights – through the 14th Amendment – to regulate state powers, the debate about whether current lawlessness can rightfully be blamed on deviation from the beneficent Constitution or if the problem lies in the deeply flawed document itself and why ideas can’t be property.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (5.5MB)

(local copy)

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:55 — 5.5MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 034.

I was a guest yesterday on Jake Shannon’s libertarian “Mental Self Defense” radio show discussing intellectual property (what’s new). Good host.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:54:40 — 26.2MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 033.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 37:51 — 17.3MB)

Related/update:

• Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch, “The Libertarian Moment,” Reason (Dec. 2008): “Despite all leading indicators to the contrary, America is poised to enter a new age of freedom.”
  • Discussed in Marc Clair, 541. The “Post Libertarian Moment” with L.B. Muniz, Lions of Liberty podcast (Nov. 29, 2021); see also The Post-Libertarian Moment; Marc Clair, The Horrors of ESG, the Post-Libertarian Dialogue and more with Tommy Salmons, Lions of Liberty podcast (May 30, 2022)
• Jesse Walker, “A Short History of Libertarian Moments,” Reason Online (3.16.2016): “From the 1920s to today”
• Robert Draper, “Freedom Rocks” aka “Has the ‘Libertarian Moment’ Finally Arrived?“,  NY Times (Sunday Magazine) (Aug. 7, 2014): “Rand Paul is to the libertarian movement what Pearl Jam is to rock, according to one prominent libertarian.”
• Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves

***

Too many libertarians, especially of the “sky is falling” crowd (the ones who have been predicting major societal collapse for 40 years), are sure we are in End Times. Some previous age was America’s apex, from which we’ve long been in rapid decline. America has gone from being a pretty decent place to a near “police state.” When was this golden period? Not the Founders’ generation (ugh). Not the post-war 1950s or even the post-Civil War 1850s. The 1950’s were better in some respects than the 2010s, but not in every respect. Yes, the police state is worse now but war is down. The draft is gone. Marijuana legalization is on the horizon (and marijuana is super-high quality now in states where it is quasi-legal). Gay marriage, unthinkable in the 50s and even 70s, is inevitable. ¹ Alcohol was legalized long ago and porn’s legal status seems not in doubt.

Air travel is cheaper and safer, and used more and more by the masses. Middle class people take Disney Cruises, vacations zip-lining in Costa Rica, or vacation in Turkey, Germany, Italy, Britain, Australia. Incomes are higher, houses are bigger, air-conditioning is more ubiquitous. Cell phones are cheap; everyone has one. Computers are powerful, inexpensive and portable, and we are all linked by one of the most amazing developments in all human history: the Internet. 3D printing is on the horizon, food is better and cheaper. Diversity is flourishing, as is tolerance: some people are vegetarians, vegans; no big deal. Meat eaters accommodate them when they invite them for dinner. Christians have Jewish and Hindu and atheist and Muslim friends; their kids all associate with a rainbow of colors of kids from all over the country or the world, with different ethnicities, religions, traditions, holidays—no one minds. A waiter from Alabama might good-naturedly tease his LSU-shirt wearing customers, but everyone laughs it off; they have their mild regional and college and geographical identities and alliances, but they are not serious or real. We don’t have soccer hooligans and stampedes at football games here. The era of private spacecraft is upon us too. Tie-died clothes and “peace” teeshirts, once derided as “hippie,” are now cool—college kids and soccer moms wear them. (See: Justin Gaffrey Peace Art.) Some people have nose rings, multiple earrings. Tattoos. Nobody cares. That would have gotten you dirty looks or shunning in the ’50s. Mixed-race couples? Nobody bats an eye.

Food and restaurants are better than ever. There are amazing art museums all over. Movies and especially television are better than ever, and music is healthy and vibrant and proliferating. American universities are the best in the world, as is American technology and business and culture, as seen by the dominance of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Hollywood, and so on.

Libertarianism and free market economics (including Austrian) are on the rise; the numbers of intellectuals, students, etc. who are interested in these ideas today completely dwarfs numbers from even the 1980s, and even more so those of earlier generations.

The state is growing too, but it is also less powerful in some ways—cell phones and cell phone video cameras and the Internet and twitter and facebook and google have put state actions under increasing scrutiny. The threat of a truly major war is remote. And while the state does its usual song and dance  of taking as much as it can get away with, the fact that the state taxes us and even regulates us (in some ways) more is, perversely, some kind of evidence that things are better. Why? The state is parasitical on its host: natural, civil society, the underlying free market economy operating beneath the fascist barnacles. The state is able to extract more from the host only because the host is bigger and richer now. (See Hoppe on Liberal Economies and War.) And it is able to ratchet up “police state” type measures such as surveillance, airport security measures, only because it is dimly aware that its victims usually have no readily available alternative state to move to. If one could fairly easily move from the US to country X and have a similar standard of living, earn a similar amount of money, and have even better freedom and civil liberties and lower taxes, millions would do this. That this doesn’t happen is precisely because those living in the US have it so good—despite the state.

And yes, the U.S. is allegedly slipping on the economic freedom index, but this is partly because  other places are getting more free all the time.

Moreover, the main tools that the state once used to control the economy are becoming more and more non-functioning, and everyone knows it. Fiscal policy is at an end. Monetary policy is not performing either. Regulatory policy is all about a battle between large corporations over who can screw their competition fastest. But in general, the old vision of the state as the master of all things is completely dead in the U.S.—on the left and the right. The energy is with technology, innovation, and the development of private nations within the nation. Technology has permitted smaller, nimble companies and entrepreneurs who don’t need big foundries or staffs, who outsource discrete tasks to other specialists and who outsource themselves without centralized direction, responding to the tugs of supply and demand. They regard the state as a drag, a nuisance, and hop around it like acrobats, focusing on making money, making things, and pleasing customers.

Making observations like these often infuriates libertarians, who in their monomaniacal obsession with the state let thinking about the state permeate everything they do. They think you are making light of state depredations, that you are even excusing or forgiving it, if you admit that it’s possible to live a good, flourishing life even in the presence of the state. They scoff at the suggestion that there are really no “better places” for most Americans to move to … even though they are still here, too. Yes, the state is terrible. Yes, private crime is terrible too. But they are just impediments to life, challenges. Just as natural disasters, wild animals, disease, and even the fundamental facts of scarcity (of resources, of time) are obstacles or challenges that any successful, rational human actor has to overcome to lead a happy life. In some circumstances it is not possible to succeed; here, private crime, or the state, has imposed too much damage. Think of young blacks raised in a culture of violence, ugliness, horrible role models, drugs and drug war violence, fatherless, and suffering from the ravages of the government educational system. Or think of Jews living in ghettos or even concentration camps in Hitler-era Germany. The state can snuff out life.

But tens, maybe hundreds of millions of Americans find ways to navigate and ignore the state. They avoid drugs, since that might send you to jail; they don’t care much, as they don’t want to do drugs anyway. They don’t evade taxes, since they would prefer to keep 62% of their $150k salary than go to prison. And the $93k net they are left with has more purchasing power than their dad’s or grandparent’s net salary from generations past. They go to their children’s plays; they have nice SUVs; they have nice friends and family members; some go to church, some give to charity or work to help the less fortunate. Some have friends all over the world on facebook, and pin their hobbies on Pinterest. Startups burst like popcorn onto the scene all the time; some fail, like Digg, others prosper, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, Apple.

Sure, more state-caused recessions are coming. But I am not persuaded that we know a huge collapse is coming (the kind “worse-is-better” libertarians too often pine for); Austrian economics tells us the state ought not to intervene in markets (if we want prosperity), but the future is uncertain (see my post Verstehen and the Role of Economics in Forecasting, or: If You’re so Rich, Why Aren’t You Smart?). For my part, since I believe in the power of freedom, free markets, and technology, I think it’s reasonable to predict that the economy and innovation will continue to increase, over time, in absolute terms, despite the state’s depredations. I could be wrong. It’s possible. But it seems to me that bugging out is not a viable solution. If doom is coming, doom is coming. For me, it’s not a reason to give up. Far from it; it’s a reason to try to be more successful—to acquire more money and power, to better withstand any coming statist calamities.

I do not believe in optimism for optimism’s sake. I am not a believer in the “power of positive thinking”; I’m a realist. Rothbard, I think, used to say the libertarian has to be a short-run pessimist and a long-run optimist. I suppose I agree: things look “bad” now from the point of view of libertarianism’s odds of success; and we can hope that the free market and freedom will ultimately somehow defeat the state, because they are more right, more productive, more powerful. I suppose. But this is strictly an activist perspective; it’s what someone focusing on libertarianism’s prospects would say. But the goal of each person is his own life. I am a personal optimist in the sense that I think I, myself, and many other people as well, can and will be able to live happy, successful, flourishing lives, despite the state. I view my libertarian involvement not as typical political activism; it is more of my own hobby, or avocation. Others have different interests outside their work and families. I am interested in libertarianism because I happen to like economics and political philosophy, and have a passionate, intense interest in justice and rightness. But as a person I am interested in more than this: in living a good and happy and successful life. So I view the state (and private crime) as evil, yes; and they are evil because of the barriers they put in the way of people who want to live happy lives. It does no good to complain about the possibility of hurricanes or a disease one has; the criminal actions of the state are intentional, so complaining about the state (or, more particularly: voicing objections to, criticizing the state) might have some long-run or even short-run efficacy, but there is no guarantee. So the state, as with private crime, has to be regarded as a type of background danger in life that one has to figure out a way to defeat, evade, escape from, hide from, navigate around, or ignore. And I’m confident that, for at least tens of millions of Americans, this is possible. It’s a shame; it’s an unfortunate cost or drag needlessly imposed on civil society, the economy, and individual human lives; but there you have it. We can still recognize it, take it into account, and prosper despite the state.

The main benefit of doing this is one’s own personal gains. But a secondary benefit, for those of the libertarian avocation, is that you also become a more effective torch-bearer for liberty. As I discuss in Nock and Leonard Read on “One Improved Unit” and the Power of Attraction (see also Living a Life of Excellence and Liberty), if you focus on improving yourself, succeeding, flourishing, instead of trying to improve others (or futilely trying to change the state, instead of recognizing that it’s bad, and exists, and is there), then you generate more light, than heat; and light has the power to attract others.

As Leonard Read wrote in The Essence of Americanism:

I am not at this level but I am aware of it and know some of its imperatives. One imperative is the awareness that the higher the objective is, the more dignified the method must be. If we aspire to such a high objective as advancing individual liberty and the free market, we can resort to no lesser method than the power of attraction, the absolute opposite of using propaganda, indoctrination, and half truths. A good way to test how well one is doing on the objective we have in mind is to observe how many are seeking his counsel. If none, then one can draw his own conclusions!

The sole force that will turn indifference into acceptance is the power of attraction. And this can be achieved only if the eye is cast away from the remaking of others and toward the improvement of self. This effort demanded of each individual is not at all a sacrifice, but rather the best investment one can make in life’s highest purpose.

Well, where can we find such individuals? I think we will find them among those who love this country. I think we will find them in this room. I think that one of them is you.

See also Anthony Gregory’s The Golden Age of Freedom Is Still Ahead.

(Thanks to Jeff Tucker and Anthony Gregory for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this post.)

Update: A lot of discussion of this post on Facebook.

And on a second Facebook post in 2016.

And Tim Sandefur says: “For once I agree with Stephan Kinsella.” For once? Well he has also agreed with me on IP—see his article “A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Theory of Intellectual Property Rights,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 9:1 (Fall 2007), pp. 139-61.

See also David Brooks, Relax, We’ll Be Fine,  NYTimes April 5, 2010

1. Update: it ended up happening in 2015. And see my post The Libertarian Case for Gay Marriage. [↩]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 032.

From Kinsella on Bill Handel Show Discussing Blackmail, Tiger Woods, David Letterman (Dec. 14, 2009) (Mises): I was a guest on the Bill Handel Show in late 2009 discussing the libertarian perspective on blackmail, with reference to the Tiger Woods and other cases. (See my post Blackmail should be legal: the case of David Letterman.) We also touched on common law versus legislation (see my Legislation and Law in a Free Society), intellectual property, reputation rights and defamation law, prostitution, and extortion. Handel, though apparently not a libertarian, was a very smart and fair host. See the Bill Handel Show podcast.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 13:33 — 12.4MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 031.

This is my appearance on the Smash Walls Radio Podcast, Episode 9: Patent Shenanigans, with host Trevor Hultner. We discussed patent trolls, the SHIELD Act, and related matters.

For more on that issue, see Patent trolls as mafioso (and that’s a compliment) and The SHIELD Act doesn’t go far enough: protect victims of all patent aggressors, not just “trolls”.

Update: See Trevor Hultner: Patent “Trolls” are Bad. Patents are Worse.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:14:00 — 67.8MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 030.

This is an interview of Derek Khanna, a conservative/libertarian pro-innovation and pro-free market activist. Khanna was the Congressional staffer who authored a copyright reform brief for the Republican Study Committee (the conservative caucus of House Republicans). The brief was entitled Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it, and attacked current copyright law and proposed sweeping, significant changes—reducing statutory damages, expanding fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and significantly limiting copyright terms. The brief was immediately taken down, and Khanna no longer works on Capitol Hill. (See House Republicans: Copyright Law Destroys Markets; It’s Time For Real Reform; Heroic and Radical Republican Study Committee Copyright Reform Proposal Retracted under Pressure from MPAA and RIAA, Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC ‘Fix Copyright’ Policy Briefing, Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain, and Copyright Shill’s Defense of the Status Quo.)

Khanna’s latest effort was a petition urging the White House to make it legal under copyright law for people to unlock their cell phones. The White House agreed. (See Khanna’s article in Forbes.com, White House Comes Out in Favor of Cellphone Unlocking and his National Review Online article, Why the GOP Has to Get Behind Cell-Phone Unlocking; also Derek Khanna: “Taking on real reform in a post-SOPA world – let’s start with cellphone unlocking”; White House Says Mobile Phone Unlocking Should Be Legal; and the TechCrunch piece, How A Fired Republican Staffer Became A Powerful Martyr For Internet Activists.)

We discussed these and related technology and IP issues.

Follow Khanna at https://twitter.com/DerekKhanna.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 45:57 — 42.1MB)