KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 236. [Update: a transcript is now available.] At Libertopia 2012, I delivered a 45-minute talk , "Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP" (Oct. 12, 2012), the slides for which are below. I spoke for 45 minutes—well, 40, then the last 5 were taken up by a question from J. Neil Schulman—but only covered the first 25 slides. I covered most of the remaining 41 in a separate recording, Part 2: KOL237. This episode covers issues in the first 25 slides, including: Overview of case against IP: purpose of property patent and copyright: as negative servitudes Absurd Arguments for IP “Serious” Arguments for IP Libertarian Property “Creationism” Rand on rearrangement Good ideas are scarce! IP is just like “property”! All property rights are limited/no property rights are “absolute” Absolute property rights We should “balance” innovation/IP vs. free speech Roots of copyright: censorship Balance: between copyright and freedom of speech Hollywood blockbuster movies vs. Youtube/Internet freedom We should “balance” innovation/IP vs. free speech IP is not a monopoly! Origin of modern patents Liberty is good, but not our “only value” (Previously posted as here: Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012) (Oct. 13, 2012). See also See also:  There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property.) At Libertopia, I also participated in an hour-long IP panel with Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer. It is presented in Part 3, KOL238. Update: I thought of one more argument that I forgot to cover in the slides and talk. It is the argument made by Silas Barta that (a) some libertarians support rights in airwaves (electromagnetic spectra); but (b) if you support airwave rights you have no basis to object to rights in other nonscarce resources like inventions or patterns of information (see Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property). [Update: See also Silas Barta: The shortest, safest libertarian case [sic] for IP] There are several problems with this argument. First, not all libertarians support rights in EM spectra. So they are not committed to favor IP rights, even by Barta's argument. Second, even if EM spectra ought to be homesteadable, it does not mean that patterns of information ought to be. This is because EM spectra are actually scarce resources, while patterns of information are not. IP proponents typically grudgingly admit, when pressed, that EM spectra are  scarce but patterns of information—knowledge—is not, but they then shift to the argument that the monopoly over information leads to a "right to exploit" the monopoly, which leads to acquisition of profit (money), which is a scarce resource. The problem with the latter maneuver is that the profit comes from money voluntarily handed over to a seller by a customer. But the customer owns his money until he chooses to spend it. No other person has any property right claim in other people's money or, thus, in any possible future income stream or profits. Third, even if support of airwave property rights were to imply some type of possible rights in information or the right-to-exploit information, it does not imply that legislated IP rights systems like patent and copyright are justified (see, e.g., Legislation and Law in a Free Society). The advocate of an IP system that is somehow compatible with EM spectra rights has the burden of making a positive obligation for this system, and specifying its details. He can't just say that IP is justified just because some of its opponents favor EM ...