Murray Rothbard defends intellectual property.Submitted by DennisYork on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:13
" Let us consider copyright. A man writes a book or composes music. When he publishes the book or sheet of music, he imprints on the first page the word “copyright.” This indicates that any man who agrees to purchase this product also agrees as part of the exchange not to recopy or reproduce this work for sale. In other words, the author does not sell his property outright to the buyer; he sells it on condition that the buyer not reproduce it for sale. Since the buyer does not buy the property outright, but only on this condition, any infringement of the contract by him or a subsequent buyer is implicit theft and would be treated accordingly on the free market. The copyright is therefore a logical device of property right on the free market.
Part of the patent protection now obtained by an inventor could be achieved on the free market by a type of “copyright” protection. Thus, inventors must now mark their machines as being patented. The mark puts the buyers on notice that the invention is patented and that they cannot sell that article. But the same could be done to extend the copyright system, and without patent. In the purely free market, the inventor could mark his machine copyright, and then anyone who buys the machine buys it on the condition that he will not reproduce and sell such a machine for profit."
He's against patent, because it doesn't allow independent identical inventions, but pro-copyright because people own the fruits of their labor.
(I'm posting this because of the Kokesh anti-IP article that was posted on the front page. I bet this won't be posted on the front page, because it's too pro-liberty and upsets people who like the idea of using the produce of other people's labor without earning it).