Respecting Intellectual Property

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:37:44 GMT <== Politics ==>

Libertarians seem to be of two minds on Intellectual Property (IP). Many authors I know, e.g. Claire Wolfe, L. Neil Smith, & Scott Bieser, firmly believe in it. Many respectable anarchists, led it seems primarily by N. Stephan Kinsella, do not. Mr. Kinsella has written a short book, Against Intellectual Property, which is available as a free download at mises.org/books/against.pdf or on dead trees (for $6), also at mises.org. L. Neil Smith published a series of articles supporting IP in The Libertarian Enterprise: Neil, Richard Bartucci, Cathy L.Z. Smith (Neil's wife), Cathy.

As a practical matter, I don't find Kinsella's and (Neil) Smith's arguments to be all that different. Smith argues that he creates what he writes, from his mind and his effort, hence he should be able to control it. Kinsella says that ideas are not scarce, hence should be unownable, yet he acknowledges that they can be protected by contract, if those who have explicitly agreed to the contract are the only ones controlled by it (no "social contract" here). Smith states that he doesn't intend to defend his intellectual property by using the power of the state to assault and kidnap copyright violators. But he doesn't go into the details of how he will enforce it. I have read many times that intellectual property requires state enforcement. My disagreement with that is the reason I'm writing this essay.

First off, I want to be clear that my support of intellectual property in no way involves the state. I no not believe in prison. I created NoMoreCages.org, dedicated to eliminating the concept of prison. "Caging humans is inhuman. Stop it." I consider arrest to be newspeak for kidnapping. But I support Neil's assertion that creators own their work, and Kinsella's argument that only explicit contract can protect it.

The core of my argument is that enforcement is not the issue here. The issue is respect. If an author or inventor spends his precious time creating a story or a tool or toy that enhances my life, my respect and gratitude to him for doing so will cause me to naturally respect his wishes for compensation for his work. If I wish an author/inventor to be able to create more stories/inventions, I will want to pay her to enable that. Respecting a creator will also cause me to naturally disrespect someone who copies her work and attempts to pass it off as his own.

But this is copyright with no teeth. It's patent with no enforcement. Nonsense. We who believe a stateless world will be a better world are already proposing a reality where your reputation is your most valuable asset. Without a good reputation, insurance companies won't back you, you become an outlaw, and if someone decides to rob you, or shoot you, you will have little but your own gun and ingenuity to protect you. So copy a book, or a computer program, or the design for a better mousetrap, when the creator of those has not granted you license, and people who respect the rights of creators will shun you, and you could be in much worse trouble than being kidnapped and put in a cage, as the state will do to you now.

So how will copyright and patent work in the stateless new world? As usual with arguments about agorist society, I don't know. The solutions will be as many and varied as there are people to create them. But here's one likely scenario. The click-through EULA's (End User License Agreements) that we all routinely ignore now, will be backed by digital signatures, proof that you agreed to them. Give away that copy of The Probability Broach, and Neil will have proof that you agreed not to, and most arbitration and mediation services will support his side of that very real contract. Make him whole or suffer docking of your insurability rating. Enough of those, and you're as good as hanged.

Of course, open source will still exist. In both the copyleft viral form and the variety of Creative Commons licenses. I distribute most of the software I write (that doesn't belong to someone who paid me to write it) with the Apache License. You may use it and change it for any purpose, as long as you give me credit. In the stateless new world, Cory Doctorow will continue to provide free copies of his novels, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute will continue to provide free PDF downloads of their books, if you have the patience to find them. But Neil and Claire and Scott will be able to enforce their copyrights, better than they can today. And I will continue to respect their desires about the copying of their writing. I hope you do too.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (1):

I submitted this to The

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:03:05 GMT

I submitted this to The Libertarian Enterprise. It appeared here.

Edit comment

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Obama’s Very Real Death Panel
Steve Jobs, RIP
Quote
The Grift
9/11: Even If the Official Story Is True, the Official Response Is Still Wrong
iPhone 5 Liveblogs
137777
EcoProducts Compostable Green Stripe Cups
AlphaDog Proto
ZAP

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair