20 votes

Dismantling Intellectual Property Myths

Adam Kokesh: Dismantling Intellectual Property Myths

http://youtu.be/vgMkAVhMG4s

http://davidkretzmann.com...

Interesting and insightful perspective on intellectual property, an issue libertarians have a hard time discussing and agreeing on. Check out these resources and let me know what you think.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You keep..

You keep making that assumption Brian, and you may be correct in most instances, but I'm aware of the differences between copyright, trademark, and patents.

I'm not an expert, but I am a graphic designer, a musician, and manage the marketing department for a company that has a few patents and a lot of copyrighted material. I produce it. I'm referring to all three...copyrights, trademarks, and patents when I say intellectual property rights.

So just to be clear, I understand IP is protected by the constitution. I'm just having second thoughts on if it should stay in there. And if it is consistent with our principles of non-aggression.

I want to be sure we all agree that it is the role of government to prevent people from using their personal resources to produce some item, musical piece, artistic or literary work if someone else has already paid the money for a license to produce that idea exclusively, a government approved and enforced monopoly on technology. I don't think this is the role of government.

http://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4

"You don't have property rights over something you did not create."

So under your stated premise above, we do not own our cars, our clothes, our pets, etc. Of course we can have property rights on CD's that we copied with our own resources. Now, if we try to pass it off as an original, the customer should have legal recourse to get their money back. But record companies claiming they're losing money, for instance, assumes that people who download free music would buy the music if they were forced to.

In my opinion, the music industry missed the boat on mp3 downloads and digital music until it was too late.

Also, regarding patents, did you read the article I posted about medical patents?

http://mises.org/daily/5229/The-Wicked-Work-of-Medical-Patents

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

I agree

In my experience most people who are for IP laws (and liberty minded) have no practical experience in the area.

Good to read that you have changed your opinion based on your own experiences. So have I.

In my experience IP laws serve the powerful against the people just like other big government ideas.

Basically an idea is not property. Property is something more material.

One of the reasons IP laws do not work is that they are inherently inconsistent just like most other government inventions. Governments love grey areas because it creates problems and then "solutions" can be sold to the public thereby increasing government power.

A small example; you can protect a book and a slogan, but you cant protect a sentence or a paragraph, or can you? The whole system is unenforceable and impractical. And how about the words themselves? If we had had IP laws at the time language was created would we not have been allowed to speak? Isn't clear that IP laws stifle innovation and do not belong in a free society?

When you work with IP laws on a daily basis you realize that it is just a tax on business. Furthermore it forces you to disclose your ideas (in a patent) in fear that others may patent your idea and force you out of business. As a small company you have no benefits but only costs and unfair competition. It is much more effective to keep your basic know how secret but as I said you almost have to pay the government's patent tax to protect your right to do business.

How can it be fair that if I made the first wheel then billions of other people would not be allowed to make wheels. The idea is so ridiculous in a free society.

Actually, it is people with

Actually, it is people with no experience with IP law that tend to voice the most anti-IP rhetoric and demonstrate the least comprehension.

Are you really that

Are you really that thick????

"Basically an idea is not property." this shows how ignorant you are... How many times have we stated that Ideas are NOT protected under IP laws and yet people continue to believe this is the heart of the matter.

"One of the reasons IP laws do not work is that they are inherently inconsistent" But they are NOT inconsistent. Your understanding of it, is inconsistent.

"If we had had IP laws at the time language was created would we not have been allowed to speak?" Again you complete lack of understanding. It amazes me people talk about something they know NOTHING about. Quite frankly it is irritating and you know why> Because you can google what IP is and what it does, OR you can just read what some of us have posted many times in this thread and go check it out for yourself. But no, you and some of the others come in and repeat the utter nonsense.

"When you work with IP laws on a daily basis you realize that it is just a tax on business" What the hell are you talking about? Can you BACK UP what you say?

"How can it be fair that if I made the first wheel then billions of other people would not be allowed to make wheels. The idea is so ridiculous in a free society."

NO, what IS ridiculous is your statements like that. IP does not protect invention of the wheel. how many times do we have to say that? Jesus..!!!

And you wanna know why I am annoyed. BEcause you have spent LITTLE of NO time doing research. You are parroting the nonsense coming from people like Kokesh who also don't know anything and have a complete misunderstanding what IP laws mean and work.

Your whole premise of your argument is based on an ERRONEOUS understanding of IP laws.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

n.m

n.m

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I work with IP every day.

I don't believe that for a second.

How do you "work with IP"? In what way? You have repeatedly demonstrated a total misunderstanding of what the term means.

You are not saying anything,

You are not saying anything, which si the tragedy. Nor did you have the courage and/or intellect to respond. I am annoyed with you as you can tell, because you continue to post nonsense without backing it up, repeating the typical misguided myths perpetrated by people like Kokesh.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I am sorry you are annoyed

I KNEW you weren't gonna back

I KNEW you weren't gonna back anything up,which is the EXACT reason why I was annoyed and still am.. Your statements are justa s offensive to me as when the media lies about Ron Paul.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

You can change you mind if

You can change you mind if you want, as long as it does not affect others. Taking things from someone against their will and without permission is an aggression.

"I want to be sure we all agree that it is the role of government to prevent people from using their personal resources to produce some item, musical piece, artistic or literary work if someone else has already paid the money for a license to produce that idea exclusively, a government approved and enforced monopoly on technology. I don't think this is the role of government.
"

That sounds like a contradiction to me. First you saw we all agree and then you say it isn't the role of the Gov.

"You don't have property rights over something you did not create." Again, the premise of your argument is wrong because copyright deals with the RIGHT to COPY, thus the term COPYRIGHT. Not that you don't have a right to purchase and then use it. but you cannot COPY it and distribute unless for personal usage. You have right to stuff you purchased or received, provided it the giver/seller was the holder in due course and there are no claims.

"record companies claiming their losing money, for instance, assumes that people who download free music would buy the music if they were forced to"

I don't know what that means.

" the music industry missed the boat on mp3 downloads and digital music until it was too late." Are you suggesting that because the labels didn't go digital in time, it was okay for people to steal the music? That's like arguing that the robbers were too quick and because you weren't home earlier you missed the boat to claim any rights.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I'm referring...

I'm trying to say that most people don't understand the counter arguments to IP rights (those that say it's communism). So I want to be sure those that are in favor of IP rights understand that essentially they're calling for government approved and protected monopolies, something we're against in all other instances.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Show mw a society that has

Show mw a society that has made vast scientific and engineering breakthroughs and I'll show you a society that defends Intellectual Property rights. Not "idea" rights, IP rights (aka property rights).

The Egyptians...

The Egyptians, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Greeks, the Romans...etc.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Those societies utilized

Those societies utilized slave labor. Let's leave slave labor out of the equation and deal with more modern concepts. Also, the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, ancient Greeks and Romans never invented anything approaching microelectronics.

You asked...

You asked to "Show me a society that has made vast scientific and engineering breakthroughs", and I ask, "were star and planet mapping and pyramid building vast scientific and engineering breakthroughs?"

You can't go changing the question and not accepting answers because it screws up your analogy. We had slave labor here in the US when it was the most free country...ironically.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

"So I want to be sure those

"So I want to be sure those that are in favor of IP rights understand that essentially they're calling for government approved and protected monopolies"

This is yet just another example that you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry. You are thinking of monopolies like me copyrighting colors, like red and green and no one else can use them. That would be a monopoly and is not allowed. See ETS-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc., 323 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003).

What you CAN copyright, is the way you SPECIFICALLY expressed a piece of art with those common flow of colors.

Do you know the purpose of government?

Read the declaration of independence. It's right there, and you will learn that those of us who support IP protection are right in line with what the purpose is. And yes it is communism to force people who create something unique to be forced to not only share it with others, but have others do with it as they please.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Quit putting words in my mouth Brian...

You're stuck on copyrights and I'm talking about ALL IP rights. Copyrights are just one of other forms of IP.

Does someone who has a patent on medicine or an xray machine or something like that have a government protected monopoly? YES.

Does someone who patents a process have a government protected monopoly on that process? YES.

Does someone who designs a logo have government protection so that no one else can mimic his trademark, hence a monopoly on that trademark? YES.

Does someone who writes a book or a piece of music have a government protect monopoly on that specific arrangement? YES.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The debate is not whether or not IP rights are constitutional. I already conceded IP protection is an enumerated power of congress by the founders in the constitution. The debate is whether or not intellectual property is the same thing as property and whether or NOT the protection of IP rights should remain an enumerated power of congress.

Come on Brian. Do I know the role of government? YES! It's to protect our natural rights. But still the question remains, is intellectual property the same thing as property and should it be protected under the same rules as property rights. Grow up dude, and quit being such an asshole.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

"Does someone who writes a

"Does someone who writes a book or a piece of music have a government protect monopoly on that specific arrangement? YES."

So what? That is like saying when you buy a house you have protection from the government of that house. That is the point of the government. You just have an issue with people who are creative and CREATE something they get protection from, and want to make a distinction between someone building a house and getting protection and someone writing a book.

Don't be a hypocrite. And you use monopoly in a twisteed distorted way, because monopoly refers to someone or some people having control over one thing others can't compete with. You are NOT prevented from writing-a book, or creating an a machine that processes an x-ray a unique way, or a logo that is unique.

What you cannot do, and you seem to fail to understand this, is COPY what someone else did. A monopoly would be if I patented books in general and prevented everyone from writing them.

If you don't get it, you may never get it, but stop being such an asshole..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

You sir...

You sir don't know anything about me. I don't have an issue with people who are creative and create things. I create things for a living. I have taken ideas from concept to customer in a factory setting, and got paid money to do so. I create for a living, and I create for fun.

Second, your house comparison makes no sense, or at least not to me. Please explain further.

My comparison is an attempt to point out that we don't need government to go around arresting copy-catters. Just like the market will deal with bad business decisions, it will deal with copy-catters and people trying to pass other people's work off as their own.

My other point with a link I posted in another comment was that copying by definition is NOT theft...it is duplicating, NOT stealing. There is NO negative action, but rather a positive action. So you still keep yours, but I get one too. See the difference?

Again, you refuse to debate the real debate. Is intellectual property the same thing as property and why?

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

I only know what you write,

I only know what you write, and what you write indicates you don't know the concept of IP and the rights thereof.

Let's start with something simple. Property is something one can OWN. There are exceptions to that. The exceptions are when it infringes upon others. I believe I have given examples ad nauseam, but let me try again.

You can plant a seed for a apple tree and then sell those apples. That is you property. You can't own all apples in the world or the concept of growing apples and selling them. The exceptions are obviously tyranny and use of force to accomplish that, but that is another discussion.

I am talking about property in a civil society with laws and government to protects the concept of property, because in nature no one owns anything, they have to actually fight for territories, food etc.

The foundation of owning property is two-fold, either by your own creation, such as building or creating something. The second is through transfer, either through sale, gift, Inheritance. Well, then there is through theft, which I think is the issue we are discussing.

You are just making the distinction between a house and a recording, like a musical recording. There is none as far as the right to own it through the two methods I described. It's like liberals being for social freedom, but not economic freedom and conservatives being for economic freedom but not social. There is no distinction, and you are making an equivalent argument with respect to IP.

Whether I build a house or a musical composition, I use instruments and my mind to do it. Once it is finished I own it. This concept is so clearly and beautifully stated in the declaration of independence. That is -- "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Jefferson used happiness in lieu of property.

Now you can disagree with all, but I want you to explain why you don't think a musical recording is property, but a house is.

Your agreement that "we don't need government to go around arresting copy-catters" is without any merit, because you would agree if they stole your car, they should be arrested, but then again, maybe you don't.

You won't understand it until you get rid of the distinction between a painting I create or buy and then own, and a bicyle. You have to explain why you have the right top copy my painting and sell/distribute without my say and/or permission. Does society deal with thieves? or is that a government function? Unless you are advocating anarchy.

"copying by definition is NOT theft...it is duplicating, NOT stealing. There is NO negative action, but rather a positive action. So you still keep yours, but I get one too. See the difference?"

Really? I mean, are you really saying this? No I do not see the difference.

"Theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

So if I do not consent to it, it IS theft. Basically your argument is that you can steal a few cars from jay Leno, because he really wouldn't be hurt because he still has a plenty.

That example may not be exactly the same, but what you are arguing for is counterfeiting.

Would you say this if you can just copy and print money and then argue later that you just made copies, and they still kept what they had? Do you see how silly that sounds?

Are you REALLY suggesting that Bruce Springsteen can't have the rights to do what he wants with his music, but YOU and anyone else can just copy and sell his music as you please? Please tell me if you are saying that.

"Again, you refuse to debate the real debate. Is intellectual property the same thing as property and why?"

I haven't refused anything. I already said what I know it is.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

You can't comprehend then...

If you only know what I've written, and you drew the conclusions that you did, then you can't comprehend in my opinion.

I know the the concept of intellectual property and the rights people claim to associate with it. I'm not an expert, as I also mentioned.

Intellectual property is a controversial topic with most libertarian-free market capitalists, so don't claim to have the only understanding of IP, and you have to admit that there are two sides of the debate. First, can we agree that this is a fair definition of IP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

What would you change if not? Or what would you clarify?

I agree with everything you said from, "Let's start with something simple" to "The second is through transfer, either through sale, gift, Inheritance."

But then you say, "Well, then there is through theft, which I think is the issue we are discussing."

I'm not talking about "theft" per se, other than I mentioned the definition of copying is the opposite of theft and stealing in that instead of taking something away, copying is producing one additional unit of any item. Your response of, "Really?" deserves the same.

What I'm talking about you can't seem to grasp, like I can't seem to grasp why you can't grasp what I'd like to grasp.

And that is, SHOULD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED THE SAME THING AS PHYSICAL PROPERTY?

You touch on it when you point out that, "You are just making the distinction between a house and a recording," but unfortunately you make a straw man argument. You falsely make my argument out to be a weak one by comparing two physical property items. A house and a recording (record, cd, dvd, cassette, mp3 file) are physical tangible items whereas harmonies, melodies, songs, ideas, processes, arrangement of words, etc are intangible entities.

An artist that records his own voice and music on equipment that he owns or leases does owns the physical products that he creates, correct. But when he releases it to the world, he cannot look to government to enforce a fantasy claim (IP) against anyone who listens to or plays that recording or records it using their own equipment, or copies it, or makes it better.

Now if someone starts impersonating the artist pretending to be the actual artist, then there is a crime. If someone falsely advertises a bootleg version as an original version then the purchaser should be able to seek legal recourse.

If you compose a musical composition and play it in front of a group of paying audience members or non-paying, you don't own their ears and thoughts and future actions. You don't own their instruments and their recording equipment. You don't own their memory in their heads. Why should they not be able to go home, copy your composition, record it, and sell it as a composition by you but performed by him without asking your permission? Again, you don't own the copy-catters resources, so you can't stake a claim to them.

That's why Kokesh said that Intellectual Property Rights and Physical Property Rights are the complete opposite. Think about it. Either the copy-catter owns his ears, his thoughts, his instruments, his recording equipment and can create or copy anything he wants, or he doesn't. I've come to conclude you can't have both IP and Property Rights...it's impossible.

Again, I do thing the physical recording that you produce and have on your computer is yours. But when you release it to the world, how can you expect gov't to enforce a claim on it? I mean even if I agree with that, is it even possible to enforce this? Is gov't good at doing anything?

Again, a painting you create is yours and stays on your wall if all I do is take a picture of it and then paint my own copy with my own tools, time and resources. People do this all the time actually, and sell them for profit!

I have the right to sell "your" which is now "my" painting without your permission because you allowed me to take a picture of it by releasing it to the public airwaves and also you do not own nor control the way I can use my time, my paints, my brushes, my canvass, and my copy-cat skills.

Again, you keep saying to copy means the same thing as to steal!

This is what eventually made me change my mind. To Copy is NOT to Steal!!! Say it with me, it'll be okay! Copying is not theft!

Let's look at some synonyms of COPY: carbon copy, clone, dummy, dupe, duplicate, duplication, facsimile, imitation, mock, reduplication, replica, replication, reproduction

Let's look at some synonyms of STEAL: appropriate, filch, heist, hook, lift, misappropriate, nick [British slang], nip, pilfer, pinch, pocket, purloin, rip off, snitch, swipe, thieve, make away with, make off with, run off with, walk off with

"Theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

Yes, I agree, but again for the umteenth time, your painting is still on your wall (isn't it?) and your music mp3 file is still saved where ever you saved it, and you can still continue to sell it. No body stole anything!! Actually more individual units were created, and more people have a unit. No body even touched your original paid for, private property "recording." You released it to the world.

How on Earth can you suggest my argument is basically that I can steal cars from Jay Leno because he really wouldn't be hurt bc he still has plenty???!!!!!!!!!!!! You deserve some vulgarities for that, but I refrain.

NO, you're wrong again on the counterfeiting. I specifically said if someone MISREPRESENTS the bootleg as an original. Go look up counterfeiting. It is when someone FALSELY claims to represent the original item. I'm not FALSELY doing it. I'm letting people know my copies are NOT the original works, or they should know since I'm selling it for one quarter of the price in the back alley!

Man, you're just FULL of straw man arguments! Of course Bruce Springstein can do what ever he wants with HIS music. He can still sell records. He can still do live shows. Who's stopping him?

Again, I said I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers. All I'm saying is that we need to have this debate, because things aren't adding up.

The bottom line is that to copy does NOT equal to steal. Please explain that one to me slowly so I can understand.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Just because someone argues

Just because someone argues with you over something doesn't mean there are "two sides" to it.

"I'm not talking about "theft" per se," Well you are fi you are claiming people have the "right" to copy and distribute what I made without my consent. That is stealing.

:A house and a recording (record, cd, dvd, cassette, mp3 file) are physical tangible items whereas harmonies, melodies, songs, ideas, processes, arrangement of words, etc are intangible entities."

This is EXACTLY why I stand by my original statement that you don't know about IP. You are making an argument over something that isn't a reality -- that is -- that you can copyright non-tangible items. You cannot, and I have said this a million times now. geez.

"when he releases it to the world, he cannot look to government to enforce a fantasy claim (IP) against anyone who listens to or plays that recording or records it using their own equipment, or copies it, or makes it better."

You were right UNTIL the end, when you said they "make it better."

It is not for you or anyone else to "make it better." You gonna take the Mona Lisa and "make it better"? What if the artist doesn't want to "make it better"?

"If someone falsely advertises a bootleg version as an original version then the purchaser should be able to seek legal recourse."

Huh? A bootleg version IS a copy of the original. Don't you see you are making my case?

You COPYING my music/cd is a bootleg. Why is it you don't think I have a say in this? I just don't get it, and I don't get that you don't get it.

"If you compose a musical composition and play it in front of a group of paying audience members or non-paying, you don't own their ears and thoughts and future actions. You don't own their instruments and their recording equipment. You don't own their memory in their heads. Why should they not be able to go home, copy your composition, record it, and sell it as a composition by you but performed by him without asking your permission? Again, you don't own the copy-catters resources, so you can't stake a claim to them."

You sound like Elizabeth Warren. This is EXACTLY her argument to enforce socialism. that others have the RIGHT to something because no one owns the land, the bricks that build the house, the wood that was used etc.

With that argument, you don't believe in property rights, because you don't own your car, your clothes etc.

"you don't own the copy-catters resources, so you can't stake a claim to them."

"Man, you're just FULL of straw man arguments! Of course Bruce Springstein can do what ever he wants with HIS music. He can still sell records. He can still do live shows. Who's stopping him?"

So why don't you open store and sell his music and posters etc... keep all the money....

"Again, I said I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers. All I'm saying is that we need to have this debate, because things aren't adding up."

You are right. Something isn't adding up and you are not an expert.

Okay, I give up. You are using the most bizarre socialistic arguments I have heard. So per your logic, I can print my own federal reserve notes, because I own the printer I use... Really?

"The bottom line is that to copy does NOT equal to steal. Please explain that one to me slowly so I can understand."

I have and am not doing it again for the 4th time.

All I can tell you is this. I was so convinced of many legal theories to be true and accurate until I realized they were completely WRONG. Because I just didn't understand them.

You failed to explain why Springsteen doesn't have the right to decide whether his music can be copied by you and sold or distriubuted.

The Jay example was sound. The principle of getting something where the other doesn't lose, or lose very little is what YOU are arguing.

I want to make music, manufacture 30 CDs and sell them only to my local store. I don't want YOU or anyone else to copy MY music that I created, sell or whatever. And you have ZERO say in this... COMPRENDE? Is that clear enough?

You can certainly have the conversation, but it won't be with me. I don't have the patience anymore...

I am done with this conversation. It's going nowhere fast. Good luck...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Tell that to Jefferson and Madison...

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813

http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jefferson/

There are most definitely several different facets to this debate, which I may not do justice.

Ultimately, I really just lack confidence in government, and since IP is protected in the constitution, I understand it's the law of the land, and I would support IP and work within the law to fix the system and abuse and to perhaps debating shorten or eliminate the monopolies in perhaps medicine and medical technology per this article from Socialists at Mises: http://mises.org/daily/5229/The-Wicked-Work-of-Medical-Patents

And yes you can copyright lyrics and songs.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Perhaps more people should be

Perhaps more people should be exposed to the process and the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

sharkhearted's picture

Actually your response...is an "aggression"

I don't bother to read the content of your responses to people sometimes because your targets might as well be Iran and you are bombing their women and children with tomahawk missles.

Classical liberalism is about respect.

Please don't preach "non-agression" to other people when your OWN posts...are violent.

Res ipsa loquitur.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

A post is violent? Come

A post is violent? Come again. Explain that to me. Bombing women and children in Iran? Come again.

You been drinking?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I guess...

I guess paying money is only referring to obtaining patents, but the analogy should still apply.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Sorry Adam, you are SOOOO

First, I CHALLENGE ANYONE to debate this LEGALLY with me. I.e. the legal implications of copyright.trademark. That includes people who vote me down based on ignorance or emotions. At least have the gall to speak your mind and let's see who is right.

Second, sorry Adam, you are SOOOO wrong.... How can he believe in property rights and not intelectual property? The problem is he has ZERO clue what he is talking about. This isn't about sharing IDEAS, the other is sharing the EXPRESSION of IDEAS in a tangible form. Totally different.

I can't believe I am hearing this ignorant nonsense from someone I actually respect.. The electric car had ZERO t do with copyright, which is what intellectual property deals with. Go watch the movie he is talking about.

He sounds so ignorant. This is the common mistake by people that don't know what copyright/trademark is, which are also two different and distinct issues. The latter deals with logos, slogans etc, the former deals with the EXPRESSION of an idea in some TANGIBLE form. He is talking about IDEAS, which cannot be copyrighted, but the EXPRESSION of an idea can. So his whole nonsensical argument about whether you invented paper, the language is immaterial because that is NEVER a legal issue.

Then he goes on to talk about "Why" the music industry is spending money trying to protect what they own. Huh? Are you for real? They own it, and people STEAL it and spread without permission. It's sad they even have to spend money to protect it,because it end up costing the artists and us money.

PLEASE show me the case where someone has the EXCLUSIVE right to send News by email. That does NOT exist. He is making it up...

and you CANNOT copyright/patent a WHEEL, or ANYTHING ELSE that is a common usage or would exclude the common usage, like a wheel. You can however patent a specific design. The same way you can't patent CAR in general, but a specific design you can because it does not prevent others from creating a car, as long as they don't create the EXACT same car as yours.

At the heart of this matter is BUSINESS/COMMERCE. Is anyone actually gonna argue that you should be able to open a restaurant and call it Burger King, with the same logo as Burger King and the same menu? or put out music under Michael Jackson and just copy his music and sell it? Get real..

The problem with this NONSENSE, is that some people will actually believe it and then spread it...

No offense, but he sounds like a damn communist...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

For some of us, this is integral.

This is the biggest issue splitting libertarian philosophy,

much as foreign policy is the biggest issue splitting Republicans. There are the progressive Republicans (Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Bushes, NeoCons) and the old right (Tafts, Goldwater, Pauls).

There are the pro-IP libertarians like Ayn Rand, and the anti-IP libertarians like Rothbard, Kinsella, and Kokesh.

It's pretty black and white, isn't it?

Jefferson was a skeptic of IP and flirted with the revolutionary idea of its legal abandonment. Our discussion here is worthy as some of us consider picking up where he left off.

http://spiderjohn.com/music/van/takefind.wma