Comments (16)

• newson

  i'm surprised that the "magnum" or "blue steel" looks satirized in zoolander haven't been raised. i think they were propietary facial gestures.

  Published: January 25, 2009 2:22 AM

• newson

  "proprietary"

  Published: January 25, 2009 2:24 AM

• heuristic

  It's a bit of an obsession. So, now tell us what other interesting news there is in the world of Austrianism.

  Published: January 25, 2009 4:38 AM

• Jeffrey Tucker

  Looking over this http://mises.org/articles.aspx I see precisely one article on this topic in the last 50

  Published: January 25, 2009 6:36 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  January 25, 2009
  Don't Confuse IP With Property Rights!
  
  Property rights, like everything else in these 'Dark Ages' of economics, are being abused by the ego-driven interventionists.

  In reality humans are supposed to aspire towards humility rather than arrogance. It is arrogant for someone to claim that ideas drawn from the invisible realm are exclusive to one person while there are others on the planet that have also 'discovered' that particular wonder. The arrogant one will quickly seek out a like minded ego-driven interventionist to team up with to act like a monopolist!

  Since the invisible realm is not a physical thing and is boundless and has perfectly free access there can be no exclusive resource ownership so there cannot be a monopoly unless, like almost all monopolies, it is artificially granted by an interventionist.

  Those who are adamant IP defenders need to take a dose of humility and expend their energies on acquiring that human quality.
  

  Published: January 25, 2009 9:58 AM

• heuristic

  Scrolling down this blog, I count nine articles on IP before I reach the bottom of the page.

  Published: January 25, 2009 11:01 AM

• Brian Macker

  Bruce Koerber,

  I don't think it adds to the discussion to accuse the other side of a lack of humility.

  I just got done refuting Kinsella's argument against Rothbard's position on page 49 and 50 of his book. I think it is now clearly not a floater. No hubris required.

  Heuristic,

  I think Jeff took that as claiming he had a obsession. He did only post one other article on the topic. I don't think Kinsella can make the same claim. Perhaps your comment was more appropriate on one of Kinsella's articles.

  Published: January 25, 2009 2:07 PM

• Bruce Koerber

  Dear Brian,

  Your refutation did not address:
  "Since the invisible realm is not a physical thing and is boundless and has perfectly free access there can be no exclusive resource ownership so there cannot be a monopoly unless, like almost all monopolies, it is artificially granted by an interventionist."

  Each example you gave in your 'refutation' referred to property readily defined by identifiable boundaries. Therefore these are property rights issues. My comment stated: Don't Confuse IP With Property Rights!

  The concepts of imperfect knowledge and lack of omniscience which make the free market the only just and functional means for the economy to operate does not disappear because the topic being discussed is very specific. These are overarching principles and they do not go away.

  How would you know that the idea that you 'discovered' in 'thought' was not also discovered by many, many other individuals around the globe before or at the same moment as your discovery?

  Therefore assuming that yours is 'the one and only' would be arrogant by definition. That is not meant to be an insult it is just an application of the word to an occurrence that is a good example of the meaning.

  Published: January 25, 2009 2:46 PM

• Inquisitor

  "It's a bit of an obsession. So, now tell us what other interesting news there is in the world of Austrianism."

  Word.

  Published: January 25, 2009 4:15 PM

• Vanmind

  Maybe Austrianism is caused by mercury in vaccines.

  "Four still in the box. IP is not property. Four still in the box..."

  Ha. Actually, on this issue I think I'm with Kinsella and the bunch.

  Published: January 26, 2009 2:06 AM

• heuristic

  "I think Jeff took that as claiming he had a obsession. He did only post one other article on the topic. I don't think Kinsella can make the same claim. Perhaps your comment was more appropriate on one of Kinsella's articles."

  OK, in the two-tier hierarchy of this blog, it's easy to fall into the perception of "mises.org insiders and the us rabble."

  As for Inquisitor and Vanmind, I have no idea what you're talking about.
  

  Published: January 26, 2009 11:19 AM

• DixieFlatline

  Has this use of a Dilbert comic for illustrative purposes been authorized by the Long-Carson Syndicate?

  ;)

  Published: January 26, 2009 12:10 PM

• David Spellman

  As soon as the ad hominem attacks start, you know one side has lost the argument. Character assassination drops all pretense of rational thought.

  Published: January 26, 2009 12:29 PM

• andy

  One European joke to boot...
  Image 1: two scientists - "We have discovered a new chip that makes it possible to put infinite amount of data on this small finite chip"
  Image 2: "Can you imagine the consequences of such invention?"
  Image 3: "Hi, I am from the the Copyright holders organization and I came to collect the $0.01 per MB fee"
  

  Published: January 26, 2009 12:35 PM

• bob

  exposing copyright abuse != complete and catastrophic failure of copyright in general.

  i still favor reform over legally denying IP laborers entitlement to the market demand of their products, leaving them to beg for charity from those who use the outcome of their scarce labor.

  Published: January 26, 2009 4:31 PM

• Brian Macker

  Bruce,

  Your refutation did not address: "Since the invisible realm is not a physical thing and is boundless and has perfectly free access there can be no exclusive resource ownership so there cannot be a monopoly unless, like almost all monopolies, it is artificially granted by an interventionist."

  Because that wasn't on pages 49 and 50 of Kinsella's book. I pointed out that I had refuted those sections to show that humility was not required. Success does not require humility.

  I refuted your additional argument in another comment recently also.

  "Each example you gave in your 'refutation' referred to property readily defined by identifiable boundaries. Therefore these are property rights issues. My comment stated: Don't Confuse IP With Property Rights!"

  The subject of IP covers more than merely two position. My philosophical position is that at least two sides are wrong it believing that platonic ideals exist. Since they don't your argument presents no problem for my position.

  My position is that copying rights are actually part of physical property rights. My position is similar to Rothbard's. Neither of us claim there is ownership in ideals.

  Intellectual Property can be and properly is about ownership over the specific intellectual content of specific physical objects. Use of the objects without permission to transfer that intellectual content into other objects violates the physical property of the owner. Therefore it is a trespass and not allow. Restitution can be forced by the owner without initiating force.

  Published: January 27, 2009 6:07 PM