Intellectual Property at Mises.org
In response to requests from readers, listed below are links to several IP-related articles, most available on Mises.org:
Property/Rights-based Arguments
- Against Intellectual Property, Spring 2001, Vol. 15, no. 2 Journal of Libertarian Studies, Stephan Kinsella
- In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule, September 4, 2000, LewRockwell.com, Stephan Kinsella (summary version of some of the arguments presented in "Against Intellectual Property")
- Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Scholars Edition, liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86
- Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, pp. 123–24.
Utilitarian Considerations
- Patents and Copyrights: Do the Benefits Exceed the Costs?, Fall 2001, Vol. 15 Num. 4 Journal of Libertarian Studies, Julio H. Cole
- On the Abuse of Patents as Economic Indicators, Winter 1998, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Pierre Desrochers
- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action 3rd rev. ed. Chicago: Henry Regnery (1966), chap. 23, section 6, pp. 661–62; see also pp. 128, 364
- George Reisman, Capitalism, pp. 388-89 & 417-20; also 40, 96, 187, 216, 233.
Mises Daily
- Rethinking Patent Law, July 18, 2000, Mises.org, Gene Callahan,
- Patent Wrongs, March 29, 2001, Mises.org, Ilana Mercer
- Cipro Shortage: An Invented Scarcity, October 25, 2001, Mises.org, Ilana Mercer
Further reading
- Links to other IP articles, pro and con, can be found at www.StephanKinsella.com/ip
Comments (9)
Thanks for bringing all this material together in one place. I'll be linking to some of the articles on the "Recommended Reading" section of my site.
Published: March 29, 2004 2:00 PM
What a coincidence! I've an essay on Patents and Copyrights due in two weeks. Thanks.
Capitalism also has a section on intellectual property.
Published: March 29, 2004 3:13 PM
Stephan, can I infer from these articles that
someone has the right to link his website to,
say, the LRC blog?
Dan
Published: March 30, 2004 7:12 AM
Im having difficulty understanding how one can believe that intellectual property is not something that can be owned, and at the same time believe that plagiarism is immoral.
Can anyone help me with the moral difference between the two?
Published: March 30, 2004 2:17 PM
The difference between not recognizing expression as property and plagiarism is that a plagiarist misrepresents himself to consumers, constituting a fraud.
The plagiarist does not harm the original creator of a work (since he had no right to income or value), so someone who is plagiarized has as much recourse to compensation as someone whose reputation is slandered or whose stock is brought down by FUD: none.
However, someone who consumes intellectual resources on the condition that the person selling it is the actual creator of that resourse is defrauded when that is not the case.
So, in short, not recognizing copyrights is a matter of natural rights superceding monopoly rights, while plagiarism is a matter of defrauding a consumer. Copyright 'violators' seldom misrepresent the work as their own; in fact, they would be better able to distribute by making sure the real producer is known to the consumer (i.e., no one is interested in "Man, the Economy, and State" by Anthony Bongiovanni; but the same book will sell well under its correct author).
Published: March 30, 2004 5:01 PM
I am interested in pursuing either a Graduate Certificate or JD in Intellectual Property Law. I wrote my MA Business thesis on the Austrian School and did not see any objections on intellectual property until viewing this site today. Does being an advocate of Intellectual Property diqualify (curtly) one as an Austrian?
Best, Thomas
Published: May 15, 2004 12:06 PM
I guess you’ll have to find the answer for yourself, by reading the opinion of copyright defendants on this site too (that is not so easy though as they are … scarce). The rational is important not the quantity of voices on one or the other side though.
Rothbard was in favour of copyright.
I consider copyright to be genuine too, yet I’m rather dubious about patent justification for certain reasons...
It’s a long story.
Published: June 7, 2006 4:47 PM
Thomas,
“Does being an advocate of Intellectual Property diqualify (curtly) one as an Austrian?�
Nope. Not even Austrians are perfect. (That’s humor).
But, no it doesn’t disqualify you. As Artisan mentioned, Rothbard advocated copyright, and he was and is one of the most prominent Austrians ever, and so I’m sure many or at lease some other prominent Austrians advocate it as well, although it just occurred to me that, aside from George Reisman (I think), I do not know which ones that would be.
I think Kinsella is the most outspoken of the Austrians against IP, and I think he takes first place for notoriety outside of the Mises blogs for doing so. You’ll see a lot of discussion on the topic on this site, on threads usually started by him.
Published: June 7, 2006 6:32 PM
Gee, I wonder if Isaac Newton should've applied for a patent/copyright (there's a difference?) on his "Laws of Motion" and his "Law of Gravity". How dare all those scientists out there use HIS Laws for their own work? Methinks the Newton estate will be owed billions after an appropriate lawsuit.
When a scientist discovers a new principle, it's HIS/HER "intellectual property" don'tcha know?
Published: July 16, 2006 8:27 AM