Old Truth Blog

Over the last few years, I've pitched my tent on the anti-copyright and anti-patent side of the libertarian camp. In other words, I don't hold that ideas are property, or can be property, and the granting of such monopoly privileges  by the state is an act of theft and wealth redistribution of all real property owners. John Tehranian of the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law has written a fantastic paper for the Utah Law Review that looks at the disparity between copyright law and copyright norms. It's worth a full read, however, what I wanted to share here is his making plain just how often the average person, in this case the average college professor, infringes on copyright, to the tune of billions per year: To illustrate the unwitting infringement that has become quotidian for the average American, take an ordinary day in the life of a hypothetical law professor named John. For the purposes of this Gedankenexperiment , we assume the worst-case sc...

I led the LDS Liberty Study Group discussion last Thursday on the topic of Intellectual Property. As promised, here is the discussion outline we followed. I recommend reading the free resources at the bottom to understand the arguments against defending intellectual property as a libertarian. What made for a very exciting discussion were our opposing view points. I was glad to be a part of it. LDS Liberty Study Group - October 7th, 2010 - Intellectual Property Topic - The purpose of this discussion is to understand the true nature of "Intellectual Property". We will discuss the purpose of property rights, contrast intellectual property with real (physical) property, and how intellectual property "rights" are enforced. We will not be discussing whether or not a society should grant and protect intellectual property rights. Resources are provided that explore the nature and desirability of intellectual property rights. These are comprehensive, and should ...

Stephen Kinsella posts a list of questions from a high school student seeking answers regarding the legitimacy of intellectual property "rights", as well as his answers. They provide a good introduction to the anti-IP position. These are the questions asked, click here for his answers: What would you say is the most powerful argument against copyrights and patents? What would you respond with to someone who argues that resources do not have to be finite or scarce in order to be allocated as property? How would you respond to Lysander Spooner’s argument that property is wealth that is owned, and wealth includes ideas since they can be manifested into tangible wealth? What about the argument that people own their minds, so they own the mental products? Some anti-IP people believe in a right to first sell. Would you say that the original creators should have a right to sell the creation first? Why or why not? What would you respond to someone who claims that if there were...

Whatever your feelings towards intellectual property (IP), I think it's obvious that IP law around the world, and especially the United States is in dire need of serious reform ( unlikely, says Stephan Kinsella ). Patent and copyright limits need to be reduced substantially, as well as what is and isn't patentable. From the the Against Monopoly blog comes this list of outrageous patents (click through for outrageous judgements too) : Amazon's "one-click" patent , asserted against rival Barnes & Noble Cendant's assertion that Amazon violated Cendant's patent monopoly on recommending books to customers ( since settled ) The attempt of Dustin Stamper, Bush's Top Economist, to secure a patent regarding an application for a System And Method For Multi-State Tax Analysis , which claims "a method, comprising: creating one or more alternate entity structures based on a base entity structure, the base entity structure comprising one or more entit...

In an LDS Liberty group topic about intellectual property , I had these thoughts about inventions being scientific discoveries and the consequences of that. My particular example is the cure for cancer, but the same point applies to any drug that saves lives, or invention that makes life easier: I thought I'd turn this on it's head a little. Considering patents for drugs. I see inventions as nothing more than scientific discoveries. A discovery that if I combine this widget with that widget, I have an invention I can do this with. Likewise, if I combine this chemical with that chemical, I have a new drug that fights this disease. Now, regardless of how many resources I've expended leading to the new discovered drug, once discovered, what right does the discoverer have to monopolize it? Let's pretend someone finds the cure for cancer. He immediately patents it and takes it to market. As one producer with a monopoly on the cure for cancer, he's able to charge a hi...

A very good piece appearing in the Financial Times by the European political Pirate party's Christian Engström highlights what could become of our freedoms if the intellectual property police had their way. The introduction: If you search for Elvis Presley in Wikipedia, you will find a lot of text and a few pictures that have been cleared for distribution. But you will find no music and no film clips, due to copyright restrictions. What we think of as our common cultural heritage is not “ours” at all. On MySpace and YouTube, creative people post audio and video remixes for others to enjoy, until they are replaced by take-down notices handed out by big film and record companies. Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down. This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright laws, governments are beginning to re...

I just read the cover article in my latest copy of The Freeman , the 52-year flagship publication of the Foundation for Economic Education. It is titled "Do Patents Encourage Innovation? The Case of the Steam Engine," found here . It is an interesting article on how history, in this case the history of the steam engine, has shown that patents seem to stifle innovation. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with the authors, but it did spark some thought wanderings on the claim.  To understand how such a claim is strengthened by the case of the steam engine, you'll have to read the article. But the more I think about it, the more I come back to a big question. Though patents may stifle innovation, do they encourage invention? That really is the big question. After all, without a guarantee of monopoly on an idea, just how big is the incentive to invent anything at all. Then again, monopolies hurt consumers by eliminating competition and weakening the incentive to innovate. P...