7 votes

Ron Paul Channel and Intellectual Property, Part 1

Last week I had intended to post the first episode of the Ron Paul Channel after I had seen that it was posted to YouTube. This surprised me at first as I knew that Ron Paul Channel was a subscription service, but I figured perhaps they were putting out the first episode, featuring an interview with the great Glenn Greenwald, as a free preview of sorts in order to entice viewers to subscribe. However, upon some further investigation I realized that the YouTube channel that had posted the video was not affiliated with the official Ron Paul Channel. In fact, based on the links seen in the YouTube channel, it appears that it is run by the same people who run RonPaul.com, also not affiliated with Ron Paul and the subject of a controversial dispute over the use of the domain name.

This immediately struck me as a potential problem for the Ron Paul Channel. If people are able to simply post his subscription videos on YouTube the next day, would it not seriously impact the ability of Ron Paul Channel to obtain subscriptions? The more important question is – what should the libertarian view be on this?

This example with the Ron Paul Channel seems like a good case study to reexamine the issue of intellectual property, one that a few months ago became the subject of much heated debate, at least in our niche internet libertarian circles. Should Ron Paul Channel be afforded any sort of legal protection against piracy of their shows, from a libertarian viewpoint? Is there any legitimacy to the idea that a program should be the property of its producers, and that they and only they should be able to decide where, when and how it is viewed?

Continue Reading

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Going to keep posting this when "IP" comes up

"It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely."



That is a very good point, Canada. One I plan to address next week.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*



I having NOTHING against the

I having NOTHING against the act of sharing, aka "piracy"......knock me if you want, but it wont change my opinion

I want everyone everywhere with the exact same access to information, media, culture.......screw money being the barrier to that

Dont get me wrong, i would gladly give money for something that i have used and enjoyed, to support the person or persons who created the product or service, in a voluntarilly manner, something like donations.....the newish kickstarter thing is brilliantly forward thinking in this respect, and i pray it gets free market competition, as well as goodluck to kickstarter, as of this day......

I think the old gatekeepers need to be replaced.PERIOD, by those willing to think outside the box to achieve this, to release something to everyone, everywhere, AND, make a LIVING

Also, i have no question whatsover, that the fight against piracy, copyright and patents, WILL BE used for nefarious reasons, just another leak on the boat of "small government"

Your Right

Everyone is entitled to everyone's property. Wether its media, movies, videos, ideas, businesses. Everything should be shared to the masses. Nothing has a value. We must prevent the free market from being able to make a profit. Your in the wrong spot to preach these ideas. Property Rights are one of Dr. Paul's main beleifs. Wether it's there life, there lifes work, there ideas, they should all be protected. No ones entitled with anothers work. I'm sorry. There would be no form of system today.

your assuming markets wont

your assuming markets wont evolve, payments, methods, demand, supply.....

the ideals stay the same, but the implementaion of it should never be left to sta stagnant

God bless ron, but like it as not, the internet has brought to us alot more then what its being allowed to do today, the only reason its not doing it, in my opinion, is the radical change it would bring, when practically EVERYONE is so used to the established way.......not saying it would be a smooth transaction, just a down right evolution of capabilities.......but before that we gotta sort out true nature of internet security.....that being defensive, as opposed to the "education" of it being an offensive response disguised as a defensive response a.k.a "cyber security" MEMO


Someone charges to view a video, you copy that video, and you show it to others, that's called theft. No matter how you twist the reason for it, no matte what logic you use, you are stealing someone's property without their permission.

no, it is NOTHING like

no, it is NOTHING like stealing, COPYING is NOT stealing, at best the act alone is a NUISANCE, there is no excuse, ITS A FACT.

You can't apply the real world value of stealing with literally, operating a computer

I see your conviction to this amd match it, this is not just about having your cake and eating it, as you might presume

You are so right

"...I have no question whatsoever, that the fight against piracy, copyright and patents, WILL BE used for nefarious reasons..."

In fact, it is the top story on BenSwann.com right now!

Exclusive: NSA Using Copyright Claims To Crush Free Speech?

"In fairness, what McCall was

"In fairness, what McCall was doing does use the official logo of a government agency. Can anyone just use that logo? Actually, yes. According to both the Electronic Freedom Foundation and the American Bar Association, “parody is recognized as a type of fair use, like other commentary and criticism, and courts recognize that a parody must often take recognizable elements from the work it comments upon."

You must NEVER mock secret agencies........dont you know

hello, sarcasm

“Policy Notes: Design

“Policy Notes: Design contains an image or text that may infringe on intellectual property rights. We have been contacted by the intellectual property right holder and we will be removing your product from Zazzle’s Marketplace due to infringement claims"

One thing leads to another, and then another, and the next thing you know, there will be NO infringement "claim", just a claim of a claim, they're hoping that people wont keep asking for proof of claim, but in the end, they'll just lie, in the bendy way they use words and INTERPRETATIONS.......