Comment: Here's my reply:

(See in situ)

Here's my reply:

Let us discuss this purely from the legal enforcement paradigm derived from English & American Common Law as it exist today, as what I want or prefer IP to be, or not, is irrelevant (for this portion of the discussion), however better I believe it to be, or not.

If you're an AnCap, like myself, none of whatever Powers the State presumes it has an inherent 'right' to do ___, or are delegated it, are moot, from a purely individual sovereignty POV, as well as morally and ethically speaking, as no one born post-Founders' era has been a signatory to the original Constitution, even as a contract, if you want to be consistent about current legal contractual legal framework; how can anyone be violating an implicit contract that they never signed?

A contract is supposed to be transparent and voluntarily agreed to by all signatories. The entire Rousseaun concept of "Social Contract" is a commie socialist statist con, anyway.

But for the sake of discussion, the parameters and definitions we can all relatively understand and discern are: well... definition of terms, 'legality' under current STRICTLY Constructionist Constitutionalist paradigm (not the bastardization of the Constitution, post Ante-Bellum, nor the more preferred private-law society framework), enforcement efficacy, nature of contracts, nature of defendant & plaintiffs, nature of real measurable harm, what determines a 'harm,' mens rea, excusable unintentional violations, property, theft, etc. And later on, the more abstract: what is just, moral, right, inefficacy vs. functional practicality, what is preferred going forth, etc.

First, do you agree that what Rothbard says is not Gospel, but merely a reference point?

If so, then let us proceed.

Your 1st Rothbard snippet:

Violation of (common law) copyright is an equivalent violation of contract and theft of property. For suppose that Brown builds a better mousetrap and sells it widely, but stamps each mousetrap “copyright Mr. Brown.” What he is then doing is selling not the entire property right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrap except to sell it or an identical copy to someone else. The right to sell the Brown mousetrap is retained in perpetuity by Brown. Hence, for a mousetrap buyer, Green, to go ahead and sell identical mousetraps is a violation of his contract and of the property right of Brown, and therefore prosecutable as theft. Hence, our theory of property rights includes the inviolability of contractual copyright.

First of all, Mr. Brown has no control over what a third party post-"First Sale" obtain-er does with Mr. Brown's initial design of the mousetrap, as the post-"First Sale" participants are NOT signatories to the copyright he may have established with the first buyer.

If you gonna argue based on contractual compliance, you need signatories and mechanisms to enforce it. Since private arbitration is only between signatories (and as I opened establishing the case to discuss this from a status quo legal paradigm, not my preferred private law society), you'd have to resort to govt protection racket to violently enforce it.

The post-1st sale buyer has ZERO obligations to Mr. Brown, or his imaginary sales terms.

Oh hey, and guess what?

Even the disastrously Constitutionally clueless current SCOTUS agreed on re-affirming "First Sale" doctrine: 11-697 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

Though of course, that decision does not further clarify what can or cannot be done with the actual content changes of those books in that case, beyond the scope of currently accepted enforcement of IP.

Second. You cannot be prosecuted for theft, when a product never belonged to you, in the first place, as Rothbard erroneously argued there; you'd have to establish that IP, by the nature of IP itself, has always belonged to you.

Whenever the music or film industry says they "lost $500Million in sales due to counterfeiting and Napster et al, and theft" etc, you have to know that they're really stretching their case based on previous sales quarter figures.

Now, what business do you know that can guarantee that you'd have sold within this fiscal quarter, the exact amount or more (or even less), than the last quarter?

They're claiming loss based on projections? Really? Yes, I 'get' that it's a commonly accepted practice in some insurance and actuarial circles, but is that really economically sound, just, or even ethical?

Hey then guess, the Feds claiming 9% employment is real, when it's more like 22%, or it makes sense that they exclude food & energy costs with their numbers. LOL.

Clearly, not. This is the same moronic thinking process behind Clintonite a-holes claiming they left GWB with a surplus. Um, no. Assholes, you left us with your phony PROJECTED surplus, kinda like every fictitious number coming out of damn near every govt entity.

Hey, guess by that standard, I should be able to walk into any bank and make a convincing case for them to lend me $200million with the promise to double it, because I value myself supremely and I project that I can earn $5 billion over my lifetime and thus can easily make back 'their' $200million in 2months, simply because I can project based on my own calculations. LOL.

Now back to Murray's Mr. Brown: say in week one of the 1st production run of Mr. Brown's mousetraps, he had a breakdown in his assembly line, his prototype room had an unfortunate roof collapse, and he desperately needed a sample to show a new bulk buyer from Walmart coming to town.

Mr. Brown then remembered that he personally sold a long time friend Mr. Pink a copy of his famous mousetrap at a significant discount. Well, Mr. Pink decided to re-gift it to his nephew, so it was sitting on the kitchen table gift-wrapped, while he was away on biz trip.

Now, Mr. Pink and Brown are close friends, but not close enough with Mr. Brown to have left him his house keys. Growing desperate, Mr. Brown breaks kitchen door of his 'friend's home, to steal what was legitimately sold to Mr. Pink, to 'retrieve' the pristine copy to show his Walmart buyer.

Question 1: Did Mr. Brown illegally trespass? Yes.
Question 2: Did Mr. Brown steal from Mr. Pink? Yes,

Now, can Mr. Brown claim that the mouse trap he sold his friend Mr. Pink will perpetually belong to him, just because he can claim IP rights under the implied copyright protections via 1st-sale?

If not, how could Mr. Brown claim ANYONE can "steal" his product, as theft, especially for the copies of the product that he legitimately completed the 1st-sale transactions on?

If Rothbard's Mr. Brown claims that he OWNS the designs of the mousetrap in contractual copyright in perpetuity, then he should be able to take back ANY copies of the mousetrap even though the copyright nor sales contract clarifies that the product was being sold as a lease, not a final sale.

Because THAT, would be the only way that Rothbard's Mr. Brown could claim that someone else changing his initial design to sell it as their own, is equivalent to "stealing."

Does Mr. Brown own the design changes made by others, even if they're based on his initial designs, just because he designed the first version?

Fcuk NO!

If yes? Well, there goes the entire industrial revolution! LOL.

Then there's the issue of what measurable metric constitutes a significant change in the initial design to be considered a wholly different product? A 0.00001% difference? A 10%? How about 51%?

Then what would you consider a 51% change in design??

It's all arbitrary.

One cannot STEAL what never legitimately belonged to you, or once you let it go to someone else.

And, I'd proffer that once the product left the factory and was sold legitimately as a first-sale, whatever happens to that product post-1st sale, Mr. Brown has ZERO claims on that product.

Otherwise, every product Apple Inc. has ever produced would be perpetually considered theirs.

Plus most point-of-sale products' warranties are implied terms, not a physically signed, notarized, equal and consensual contract. At best, all point-of-sale products' terms are like software EULA; 'here are the manufacturer's terms, by opening/buying this product, you agree to x, y, z, etc.'-type deal. Not a contract, contract, in the traditional sense, even though, they're legally equally recognized in most cases.

Rothbard's being wholly inconsistent, here:

But, therefore Black’s title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black’s head, can be no greater than Green’s, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown’s property even though he himself had not made the actual contract.

How can you violate terms of a contract you never signed?
There is NO legitimate claims to hierarchy of ownership or 'supremacy of lien holder,' beyond the voluntary signatories/participants in the initial "First Sale" contract, as one would in mortgage liens.

To claim otherwise is absurd! "though he himself had not made the actual contract." -- that, is very much what a Rousseaun socially implied contract-adherent would say, not an AnCap, my dearest Murray! .o/

Here's a real estate corollary: mineral rights, vs. land deed.

If I buy mineral rights to your land, but not the land itself, it's kinda like claiming I have perpetual copyright on the content recorded onto the silver platter of the DVD, but not the physical DVD disk itself.

Say I created a technology that can recognize when the DVD has been played and attempted to be copied. And, say the copyright and the EULA terms on the packaging of the DVD, as well as the intro warning screen on the DVD when you play it, clearly forbids the 1st sale end user from copying it, at all.

Then the question becomes how do I make sure that you are complying with my copyright terms? I have no way of knowing. But since I built in the 'copy-sensor' I have to be able to physically check it to make sure. Does that 'grant me the right' to invade your home to make sure you're complying?

Well, the RIAA's answer is that they can 'virtually' do it essentially, with your ISP providers, based on your IP address.

So the question is, if I bought mineral rights to your land, but not your land, would I be trespassing if I snuck in at 2am to extract oil and gold under your land?

Again, same with Mr. Brown & Pink; sure, I'd be trespassing, but not 'stealing.'

LOL! How you like that distinction? LOLOLOL

Now, would I be trespassing on your private property if my friend was your next door neighbor and he let me 'angle-drill' under your land in which I own the mineral rights to?

Contractually, NO.

But generally? Ethically? Morally? YES, I would be trespassing.

Then I'd counter with: "UNDER your land" is not trespassing "ON your land."

See where this goes?

So if you're gonna claim and agree with Rothbard that you can perpetually own a copyright which is embodied in every recording medium that can encapsulate 'patterns of info' like a DVD, then I should be able to check the veracity of that copyright; you're basically saying that I should be able to check in on you to make sure you're maintaining the terms of my copyright, even if you legitimately completed a first-sale.

Because what is a "right" when it cannot be exercised in full?

So, according to you and Rothbard, non-signatory 3rd party post-1st sale buyers should also make themselves perpetually available for inspection.

Otherwise, it's not really a "right," is it, if I can't exercise that right? Right?

Hm...awefully sounds like the RedCoats and their 'surprise random inspection checks' and illegal quartering within Colonists home to enforce the Stamp Act, you know, the reason why there's a Third Amendment to the Constitution to prevent it?

How you like that, Rothbard and you siding with the RedCoats. Yikes!

Rothbard is creating a completely fictitious, non-existent right of perpetual copyright.

Just because he lays out the case for it, does not make it so.

However, as Rothbard clearly states and illustrates that he knows the definition and the differences between copyright and patent, and proceeds to clarify that indeed any 'copied improvements' embodied in later iterations of the 'original' design, is based on a contractual protection, not solely based on some none existent presumptive paradigm that alludes somehow that the very nature of IP itself precludes that it can be and should be protected by its sole existence; his own conclusion essentially admits and clarifies that his own understanding of IP is essentially strictly contractual, not based on the Common Law concept of freestanding inherent "Right."

Now this?

Patent, then, has nothing to do with implicit theft. It confers an exclusive privilege on the first inventor, and if anyone else should, quite independently, invent the same or similar machine or product, the latter would be debarred by violence from using it in production.

Patent being protected via statist protectionist racket aside, Murray, by clarifying the functions of a patent there, in context of the previous section on how a copyright would function via contractual component (which is what Kinsella was referring to when he told Wenzel that Rothbard was using copyright in context of a patent even though he clarified the difference), Rothbard's basically admitting that for the implicit non-contractual 'contract' implied 'right' of a copyright to even work, it has to be assigned a contractual component to essentially perform like a patent, as he describes in the above section.

Sadly even our sweet dear 'ol Murray states that it's acceptable to violently, forcibly prevent someone from manufacturing a similar mechanism EVEN IF the product was conceived wholly independent of the original patent holder.

I'm kinda dismayed how little emphasis was on the time-component was missing in the entire discussion:

Frankly, in the internet age, at this current tech/cost trajectory and the veracity of the 100th monkey effect is such that, the time-gap/lapse between one inventor inventing a similar mechanism to another independently coming up with same or similar solutions will be shortened to the point of irrelevance that enforcement of patents itself will become damn near impossible.

Ever heard of Cody Wilson? 3D Printing?

Which is why, while yes, I 'get' that this is how the current statist-protectionist racket enforces patent violations:

Neither Doe nor the EZ company . . . ever heard of your invention. All believe Doe to be the inventor of a new and original device. They may all be guilty of in¬fringing your patent . . . the fact that their infringement was in ig¬norance of the true facts and unintentional will not constitute a de¬fense.[95]

I whole-heartedly disagree that honestly not being made aware that another guy invented something similar and patented it, "will not constitute a defense."

It simply won't matter, once 3D printers become as ubiquitous in every home as a desktop ink jet printer, and particle metallurgy and polymer recipes becomes such that structural weakness inherent in MIM metals and ABS plastics will become irrelevant.

Ever heard of graphenes?

It's like what couldn't you do?

When the cost of DiY manufacturing of carbon nanotubes drops below $5000 from the current $100,000~2mil range, and don't need an expensive kiln to 'grow' them??

Literally, the sky's the limit.

As for your breakdown of Kinsella, I actually agree with you here: "Thus, scarcity is not defined by rivalry."

That indeed is true. I wouldn't define it as that, either. Although to be fair, in the Wenzel interview, I actually believe Kinsella clarified that it can be a byproduct of rivalry, but not solely defined by it. I'd have to go back to be 100% certain.

As for the "homesteading principle" I've always had problem with it. What human alive anywhere can 100% legitimately claim 1st ownership? We can't. Then you introduce into the mix...'well beyond 1776...we can discern...' then you're relying on statist colonialist paradigm of ownership based on post-Conquistador date, at least as it pertains to the Americas.

That said, as things exist now, generally I can see it. But the homesteading principle is sloppy frankly, if all it takes is me 'working' what naturally exist to own it, unless that land and resources weren't deeded it specifically under Queen of England's Admiralty Land patent racket. Where the line of demarcation begins and end to determine what can be homesteaded or not is murky, and becomes worse, when you take statist land patent/deed legal doctrine out of the land ownership equation, as it stands now.

Suffice it to say, I generally agree with Kinsella on your 1), 2), 3), and kinda 4), as per my qualms with 'homesteading' doctrine as it stands.

But dude, no really?

3) Kinsella argues that you cannot own what is in someone else’s head.

Why not? Most libertarians will agree that you should be able to sell your organs. Thus, if I want to sell Joe a kidney, I can do so. But what if I want to rent him my kidney? Say Joe is waiting for an organ donor and is tired of being on dialysis. Joe knows it will take about a year for him to get a new kidney and we agree that, for a princely sum which he can afford, I will rent him my kidney for year. I, of course, put in all kinds of clauses in the contract about how he is to treat my kidney while it is in his body. Now my kidney is in Joe’s body and I have partial property rights to parts of his body. Note that this can extend to beyond my kidney. I can stipulate that Joe can’t drink alcohol while he has my kidney, which puts a restrictive covenant on his liver.

We can extend this little thought experiment to the brain. Just imagine that science has advanced to the point that we can transplant brain tissue. For example, I can rent Joe part of my awesome frontal cortex. Now, that may seem silly, but how about renting out a memory chip that interfaces with brain tissue and stores a certain skill set? Or, assume I develop the ability to rewire people’s brains to give them a particular engram. An engram is a term used for a set of neural connections that gives someone a particular skill. Let’s say we sign a contract that I give you an engram for fighting skills, but I stipulate that you can’t use your fighting skills to start a fight with an unwilling participant. This puts a restrictive covenant on your brain.

So, there is nothing inherently wrong with the possibility of owning what is in someone else’s head.

Your answer to 3) is wholly absurd. Aside from the fact that if we progress to the point of keeping your organ alive in someone else's body and have it back, as a 'rental,' even the current technology is such that it'd be less hassle and easier to simply clone yours with stem cells based on 3d printed structure and let the organ grow, and sell it to him but custom design the size to fit in his body. LOL. Sounds SciFi? The future's already here:

If you want to avoid, 'that motherfucker's still got my kidney I lent him, and he's two months late on rent!'- questions? Follow the 3d organ printing trends, so you don't unnecessarily have to stress over the terms of a contract for your organ rental biz! LOL

Besides what if he gets robbed and yours is shot in the process? Or he goes agpeshit and turns into a junkie after couple of delayed payments?

That said, back to the more complex issue of the mind...

1. Can you actually quantify owning what's inside someone's mind?

Eh, no.

2. Can you separate one thought or a specific idea from another, as it resides within someone's mind?

FCUK no, Mr. Repo Man.

3. Is mind, thought, idea, consciousness, an organ? Can you prove it, not as a measured byproduct, but an originator?

FCUK NO, Mr. Repo Man.

You cannot own, what you cannot isolate to extract it.

4. Can you extract a single thought or idea, among other ideas in that person's head like some bar-coded SKU?


5. Can you honestly make the case that you can take the entire mind of a person as a collateral for not relinquishing that single thought/idea that you and a voluntary party signed with you on, within a live person?

LOL. Really? No, seriously?

You're implying lit signals equal to origins of function; current scientific paradigm conflates what area of the brain 'lights up' with where the function or thoughts originate. Read Dr. Norman Doidge. EVERYTHING 'scientists' claim to know about the brain, the mind, the consciousness itself, are utter speculation. This is what happens in a reductionist society who cannot see matrix of interconnected systems that work as a whole, and attempt to assign a-priori assumptions of functions based on one's previous erroneous understanding, without knowing that you're basing proceeding algorithms based on previous erroneous models. You know, kinda like modern non-Austrian economists and their models??

This extends to:

2) What about your DNA pattern? Do you own your DNA pattern? Can someone else copy it? If you store it on a disk and someone steals that disk and gives it to a third person, can that third person copy your DNA pattern and use it to clone you?

When the highest scientific mind labels what they don't know as junk DNA? Yeah, see where cloning gets ya. If what it took to create anything was simple rearrangement of DNA, regardless of how they're spliced or where they came from, we wouldn't have so many problems with GMO 'food' now, would we?

You are not just your body. You are a pattern expressed through your body. You are pattern that is continuously evolving, by mixing your current labor with the previous version of yourself. Do you own yourself? I hope you say yes.

I agree, but for someone who believes the mind and single idea within that mind can be "owned" by someone else?

"To deny ACCEPT intellectual property is to deny self-ownership."

Here's the actual meat of the discussion. LOL Pardon, read on if interested. If not, others still may find it interesting.


For the sake of discussion, regardless of one's present preference or future preference of just enforcement (or none at all) paradigm regarding IP, let us define a few things, before we move forth.

First of all, can we agree that the veracity of an idea or a concept or definition is wholly independent of, and not predicated upon the opinions, interpretations, or treatise by one or more authors, or intellectuals?

If so, let us agree that this is a debate about what IP should/should not be, is it moral/immoral, right/wrong, and is it inconsistent/consistent with Non-Agression Axiom and/or libertarianism as a whole, and why?

Not what Rothbard, Mises or Ron Paul, Kinsella, or Wenzel define it as, aside from taking their work as reference, right?

Now some parameters: if you're an AnCap, you wouldn't want state enforcing IP to begin with and would most likely consider it immoral. And if you do believe IP, let us agree that you are approaching this from a minarhist to Constitutionalist libertarian, or a libertarian consequentialist POV, or if you're an enigma within an enigma and ride the AnCap & Minarchist divide, you may consider the very concept of IP as being copacetic with property rights and you want to defend/enforce it strictly from a private law POV, and you want to explore what are its implications, are the issues & pitfalls that should be explored.

As such, for the sake of discussion, let us consider the debate concepts premised upon currently enforced statist paradigm, which has been around for ages, and one in which we can somewhat objectively critique to illustrate our points, before we move on to what it should, or should not be:

1. for patent or copyright to be, it must be "scarce"
2. patent: mechanical
3. copyright: written and/or visual
4. do we agree that NOTHING is truly wholly original?
5. do we agree that there is no objective 100% copy of something, even a mechanical item? There is no technology, even ones manufactured on an assembly line geared for interchangeable parts; what is the objective variable? 0.001th of an inch difference in dimension, structural curves? Or, how about 0.0001% difference in function?

Well, since a physical item is more easy to distinguish, more apropos of IP discussion, let us consider a cinema goer's experience.

No 'duplicated' movie, can be by definition be a copy, for the very real fact that you cannot physically copy anything 100%, even digitally, in reality. It'd be like calling all physical objects a solid, when nano-scopically, they're not.

What determines a copy? 51% likeness? 99%?

We as humans supposedly have 1~5% variations in our DNA from chimps and various primates, and even less than 1% differentiates us from each other.

By the current IP paradigm, then doesn't that make ALL humans copies?

Suppose one would counter that by arguing that DNA/bio-matters are different!, the IP statist regime claims that they can patent individual DNA that they 'discovered' (as in, it already publicly existed in nature, before some white-robed MonSatan cultist came and wanted ownership of it using US Gvt monopoly) NOT invented, should the bio-matter barrier to IP definition not consistently apply, if the very concept of IP is to be applied universally?

If a definition of something cannot be applied universally, consistently, you don't really have a definition, now do you?

So, in finality, there is no 100% pure copy. You CANNOT copy an original period. No law can objectively define what a copy of an original, is.

6. Allow me to play Devil's Advocate from an IP-regime statist's POV: the morality/immorality, justness/unjustness does not equal lawful or legal, nor negate the veracity of a concept. Just because IP/patent/copyright is currently being enforced by a state mechanism does not negate the idea of IP/patent/copyright, itself. Just like the intellectual concept of 'common defense.' Just because currently, the police is a tax-theft funded state monopoly, does not negate a voluntary or commercial contractual employment of security services.


But, the concept of scarcity is really the lynchpin for why libertarians argue over IP. If we can't agree that scarcity is necessary to establish a 'need' for IP protection, from those wishing for it, we cannot go forth on this discussion.

So if you accept that scarcity is what defines a 'need' for IP, from your POV, then you must prove that ___ is scarce or not.

7. For something to be considered theft, do you agree or disagree that a given property must have once belonged to the original claimant, 1st, or not?

8. If yes. Then ALL IP laws are null and void, in terms of theft-protection aspect of the argument.


Now elaborating on the cinema goer example: say this particular theater chain, let's call it IP-CineMax Theaters, that is particular about EULA type 'voluntary' stipulations whereby the mere act of stepping into a place or opening a package constitutes you are agreeing to the terms of the individual or corporation that is providing the product, software, or movie/music experience, or in this case, on back of each printed ticket, the terms are clarified in fineprint.

So in the example of IP-CineMax, a ticket purchaser is voluntarily agreeing to a contract that he/she agrees to not film ANY movie being shown in the physical IP-CineMax space with their own personal or someone else's recording equipment/device to make a visually or audio-recorded 51%+ copy in content, length, likeness, common narrative of that said film, and if you do record it with your own or other's device, you're in VIOLATION of that said voluntary contract.

Now even if the filmgoer were to violate that 'ticket-contract' and recorded a movie being shown in that theater, can we agree that, that's a contract violation, NOT a theft of property?

But what if someone snuck into the theater without buying a ticket?

Since he never agreed to the ticket contract, nor was shown the 'enter this premise, then you agree to ____'-implicit 'contract,' the contractual obligation does not technically apply to him.

Now suppose, the person who illegally snuck into the theater saw that the original ticket-contract-bound moviegoer was violating the terms and recorded the film with his smartphone, but the smartphone's screen was so clear, that the guy who snuck in, decided to record the recording of the film, instead of what was being projected on the screen.

But, even then, aside from the physical trespass of the theater by sneaking in, when that person 'copies' something off of that said filmgoer who is in contract violation, is that theater trespasser also guilty of that IP contract violation, too?

Ask a DA, yes.

But, technically, even under current legal-regime?

Of course not.

He may be a IP-CienMax theater trespasser, not a contract violator, because 'ticket-contract' was only between the theater operator and the first sale ticket customer, and its stipulations do not extend beyond the original sale.

Even the disastrously Constitutionally clueless current SCOTUS agreed on re-affirming "First Sale" doctrine: 11-697 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

So, do we agree that even with current IP regime, one can never accurately state that an IP-violation is at best a first-sale contractual violation, NOT a theft?

Here's realistic corollary:

Say in violation of original sale and contractual agreement, a electronics store owner plays an original claimant's visual product, ie a film, in full view of passing storefront traffic on a 'public' sidewalk on a 60" flatscreen TV. What contract are passerbys violating if they were to stand outside the window of the store and record the said movie on their recording devices?

The agreement was only agreed upon between the original purchaser (electronics store owner) and the seller (film studio), or on the package of the product, if opened to be be played, the purchaser agrees to terms x, y, z. So EVEN IF the store owner violates the terms of purchase, the 3rd party was NEVER a signatory. So for you to enforce 'copyright' it MUST be enforced via state mechanism.

Now even if in a private law society, how are you gonna rationalize hiring a private security firm from enforcing 'theft' contractual violation of a film, by that said pedestrian sidewalk passerby of the electronic store who filmed a 'copy' of that said film, when the private arbitration services can only judge the original seller and the original buyer, who were the only signatories to the binding contract?

Could you morally justify hiring a non-corporatist version of something like BlackWater to enforce a non-signatory 3rd party violator, before your arbitration?

If you are an AnCap/voluntaryist, the above realistic example is why one cannot be a voluntaryist and be for IP, period.

Now if you claim to be a minarchist, or Constitutionalist who fully believes in state agency enforcement of existent IP 'legal' framework, sure. It may be argued to be immoral and violent, but at least you'd be consistently violent and immoral. But you cannot be a voluntaryist and be for IP, period.

IP fails the scarcity test as well.

Say I have friend Sallie, who is a script writer, who sat in on a meeting with five other studio-contract script-doctors that introduced them to an 'original' author Mr. Green with a 'novel' concept: a love triangle serial killer cannibals who run a diner selling human meat, who open up a chain of such diners.

The contract for the meeting was the usual non-disclosure agreement (NDA): do not discuss the content of the meeting to anyone. But such NDA's typically exempt YOU, the very person signing the NDA from talking about the content of the yourself. LOL!!!

But unbeknownst to Sallie, while she never directly told anyone about the content of the NDA-stipulated writers' meeting, when she sat at a public park bench that she often goes to, to 'zen-out' and think outloud, Mark, a 'friend' of Sallie's friend (Hannah), whom Sallie does not know at all, nor does Mark know Sallie, overheard Sallie simply thinking outloud about the concept, while sitting at two benches away from her.

Mark, remembering that his friend Hannah was in the film biz, playfully floated 'his' film idea to Hannah. Hannah being somewhat of a B-movie horror-comedy genre auteur, she got inspired: how about, instead of a love triangle, but two generations of family of cannibal serial killers, who owned a hipster Charcuterie/dry aged meat joint which served hybrid meat mixing in their their illicit human kills, rest to organ blackmarket, then decided to branch out and franchise it, among their other family members?

Now, say by a chance, both Sallie and Hannah were at a party that their mutual friend Eddie invited them to. Now, while catching up, Hannah tells Sallie that she has an awesome original idea, but never mentions that her friend Mark told her about the film idea he overheard at a public park. Now Sallie, being a horror film buff herself, and eager to get her career off the ground, thought it'd make a cool indy flick.

Now, she admits to herself that Hannah's idea sounds somewhat similar to the NDA-stipulated closed meeting she had, but since she signed the NDA, didn't want to confirm to Hannah that such similar film project idea had been optioned to the studio in which she was a contract employee. And being somewhat familiar with legalese, as long as she never admitted to hearing about a similar idea to Hannah, Sallie would not be violating the terms of her NDA.

Now, Mr. Green's film project option run its course, and the studio passed on the project. But using her contacts, Sallie was able to secure financing for her and Hannah's 'new' film idea about a chain of family of cannibal serial killer run Charcuterie hipster joint. And the film hits the box office and is a moderate success.

Mr. Green catches wind. Does he have a case to sue Sallie, Hannah, Mark, the Studio?

Try proving that. No mens rea could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, in any of the parties involved.

Now, how much of the Charcuterie-chain film idea was a copy of the original? Cannibals, yes? Love triangle? No. A chain of eateries? Yes. But a chain of diners? No. Do they serve illicit meat? Yes.

So...what scarcity? Irony is, the minute the idea is made public, no matter how many NDA's are signed, it does not become scarce anymore.

Let us consider an extreme possibility. If the mere exposure of an original idea constitute copying, then are you going to enforce what others are aware of, WITHIN their own minds??

Mr. Repo Man?

EVERYONE who sat in on that Mr. Green's 'original' film script idea were exposed to his ideas, no matter what the NDA stipulated as a contractual prohibition in willful disclosing of the idea. But, the contract only protects disclosing and using that idea without permission by the original signatories, not anyone else.

But as Mark and Hannah in the example shows, the idea got out. The mere 'exposure' of the 'original' already negated the scarcity of the idea. And because Mr. Green's film idea was able to be modified by Hannah, and also claim originality it instantly became non-scarce, and in fact un-original.

Was the 'copy' of the original film idea a byproduct of inspiration to the plot, or 'stealing' the central core of the idea? What if the 'copycat' screenwright Hannah claims that the core theme to her was "the family," not the fact that they are a family of serial killer cannibals who served meat?

If you were to attempt to enforce that, you'd be venturing into the arbitrary legal realm of victim defining what constitutes 'harmed party,' we're now entering the prior-restraint 'hate speech' zones.

If you called a really really bitchy waitress a "biotch," and because of the girl's abusive past/childhood, unbeknownst to you and contrary to her tough public persona, the way you delivered that word, one which in any other context would have to be at the lowest of the low on the ladder of 'offensive' verbal flourishes by any modern standards, have much graver personal connotation to the bitchy waitress. So, IF & When she decides to sue you and her employer (when do they ever NOT sue whomever is perceived to have money?) in states like California for harassment and destructive work environment, you are literally at the mercy of the 'victim' to adjudicate whether a defendant has or has not committed a 'crime' along with the veracity of the level of 'harm' committed against her.

And, there are plenty of scorned women, and bullied dorks among the current batch of utterly PC-brainwashed emasculated sheeple populace who'd easily side with the waitress over your glib 'hey, without bullies, where would all the great comics come from?'-drive by commentary, at the jury box.

As we all know, 'word-harm' is really wholly dependent on the intended audience's level of internal insecurity and emotional maturity.

Likewise, in such IP cases, are we then to assume that what constitutes 'violation' to be dependent on what the defendant claims was the core idea that inspired a similar story, and not from the 'original creator' of that said idea? Should it matter more that Mr. Green considers cannibal to be the lynchpin factor in his case, when to Hannah and Sallie, the fact that the cannibalized meat Charcuterie hipster joint owning Family of cannibals was more important? Does the arbitrary hierarchic assignment of importance in literary concept determine the level of violation?

As you can see, it can go on and on and on... This is no way to have a consistent legal framework.

As you can see everything becomes subjective. How do you objectively enforce an inherently a subjective matter??

So, clearly, IP fails the scarcity test, the originality test, even the 'copy' test. It's a legal fiction.

It is not a property, in the traditional physical sense; a physical object manifested from the ideas of its creator, that first physically belonged to that original creator in the first place.

IP is a faux/pseudo-property.

You can argue till the cows come home as to what constitutes a variation on your personal definition of 'idea' as "patterns of information." But, here's where you run into problems with that definition: how much change in your idea of "pattern of info" for that idea to be considered DIFFERENT than your collection of pattern of info?

What percentage of variation constitutes a wholly different idea, enough to have your voluntary contract signatory to agree to such terms?

Is 0.00001% enough difference? Or, how about 10% How about 49% variance. What are the legally consistent metric to gauge what constitutes a percentage of variation? What is the constant, or variable, used to determine WHAT a variable that determines the percentage of difference, is??

As you can see, you're never gonna let a voluntary party transparently agree to your terms, under the arbitrary reality for gauging what amount of variation in a given idea constitutes enough difference to be considered a 100% different idea, concept, without tricking them.

In math, even 0.000000000000001% variation makes that a wholly different number (unless you do function & limit considerations).

Since you defined your understanding of idea as a 'patterns of info' well, if I change 0.00001% of 'your' idea to make it more preferable to me, since even that 0.00001% of idea changed your patterns of info, then under your definition, I should be able to claim that 'your' idea just became mine, as long as that said 0.00001% variation is applied.

And I make no claim of ownership to any third party who observed me make that change in the pattern of info.

Then, the question to you would be: how the hell are you going to enforce a 0.00001% modification to your 'original' pattern of info, when someone who changed that pattern of info weren't a signatory to an agreement, with you, or me?


And, as someone whose background was in industrial design, let me make this clear: patents and copyrights are costly, and impedes innovation and promote perpetual monopoly (especially if you interpret Rothbard to 'allow' perpetual copyright or patent).

Those who never worked in design have very little clue as to how easy it is to change something to 'evade' it. Worse, what legally constitutes difference between 'original' product vs. a copy, is completely arbitrary.

For the clearest example, you want to know what Glock had the gall to trademark?

The blockiness of a slide!!!

The mark consists of the three dimensional overall configuration of a semi-automatic pistol having a blocky an squared-off shape as viewed from the side, the front, and the rear. The vertical lines at the rear of the slide indicate ridges. The stippling is a feature of the mark and not intended to indicate color. The dotted lines indicate features that are not claimed as a part of the mark. Neither the shape of the notch on the rear sight nor the circular shape of the interior of the barrel are claimed as a part of the mark. The shape of the trigger guard and the shape, location, and a position of the trigger safety tab are claimed as a part of the mark, but no claim is made to the shape of the trigger separate from the trigger safety tab.


If a pistol's slide is a purely squarish block, it's considered Glock's. But as soon as you machine a crease, a few serrations, you can evade the Glockiness of a Glock!

This is why someone like Kinsella who IS a professional IP attorney can tell you objectively, why ALL IP 'laws' are fucking ridiculous!

Worse, it fails with its core purported Raison d'être: to promote innovation.

Do you know why almost no one bothers to copyright or patent fashion design? The time value component. Your idea literally becomes obsolete and unoriginal, once you make your designs public. Often, while a dress is still laying on the sewing machine, or a fitting station.

But of course, that's not gonna stop statists. Now when you have Fucky Schmucker on your side, you KNOW you're on the wrong side of history:

Well, let us consider the more technological IP option.

Ever heard of Compaq??

Legally speaking, the Compaq Portable PC was NOT considered a copy or a clone of the IBM Portable PC because it was conceived/designed by hiring a third party to reverse engineer it, even with an intent to essentially 'infringe' upon IBM's 'original' design (got mens rea much?), just because it was manufactured using 'off the shelf' commercially available components.

Now, that real, historical, factual example is far more intentional in their attempt to 'copy'/'clone' someone else's idea and patterns of info, than my Mr. Green/Sallie/Hannah/Mark example ever could be.

To re-emphasize, there is NO real 'legal' litmus for what constitutes 'enough difference' between an 'original' vs. a 'copy' to objectively define how much percentage of difference, or what exact 'formula' can be used to differentiate the original vs. a 'copy.' And no, the porn definition of "when you see it, you'll know it" can NEVER be justly applied, as it's wholly subjective and arbitrary.

And when you can't legally define what you want to enforce, just WTF are you attempting to enforce?

How you gonna protect or enforce what no one can objectively define. More specifically, what no legalese authors can define, or have been able to define, justly?

Now, even if your very legal framework were antithetical to its original intent proclamation to inspire innovation, when your status quo legal framework can be easily evaded even from a statist's POV, as was the case with my screenplay and Compaq example, then WTF is the point of punishing people under your monopoly corporatist protection racket??

What moral libertarian can claim to enforce IP, and consider themselves adherents to the Non Agression Axiom/Principle?

You can't.

Because the only 'universal' enforcement paradigm for protection of IP under your idea as well as yours and Wenzel's interpretation of Rothbard's, is the State.

Thus, anyone who promotes IP as property right, is being inconsistent and immoral.

PS. By the way, I HAVE copyrighted multiple versions of a mechanical design that would've taken much longer and costlier to receive individual 'mechanical patents.' But the thing is it technically only 'protects' the visual representations of that said mechanical design, NOT the mechanical design itself. It just prevents others from patenting it, because the idea is now public; so in the end, I ironically cannot patent those variations of my own designs that I alone came up with, because now I made them public. See how it works. But given enough time and resources, there are very few designs that could not be evaded.

If you pay attention to any particular industry where time to market cycle is short like electronics and fashion, patents almost become moot. Oddly, a company like Kyocera who perfected ceramic blades will be around because they're the best at it, despite the fact that any large company can buy the same equipment and competent personnel. No different than why every quality clothier prefers the Japanese YKK zippers, even though the patent ran out on zippers long ago, because they simply manufacture the best most toughest bad-ass mofo longest lasting zippers on the market.

Quality and reputation, in the end, is the best 'IP protection' there is. The Market has long proved it, in fact ALWAYS has proven it, and continues to prove it, everyday.

When companies like Apple and Samsung waste anywhere between 15~35% of their annual expenditure paying their army of lawyers to dicker over weak software 'patents' you know that it's clearly not working.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul