The argument that wenzel was making, as I heard it, in the "debate" was for modern state enforced IP. The practical argument in society right now is weather IP should exist in its current form. We have sopa and pipa and cispa and all sorts of police state legislation coming down to shut down the internet all based on IP. To sit around and argue about how IP should be in a future libertarian world is of little relevance. When we, hopefully, evenutally have a free market without state intervention, the market will best sort out how to handle these things. We dont have to figure it all out now. We need to be focusing on helping people to understand why IP in its current for is so terrible. Otherwise our free internet will not be around for much longer and we cannot have these debates because free speech will be destroyed online.
in any case...
private law would recognize contracts. But how could such a thing be enforced against parties not subject to the contract and would we want it enforced? Lets say party A signs a contract with party B to transmit to them digital content X under the condition that they can use the content but not copy and distribute it. But what if C observes the content and replicates it on their own? They are not under any contract. They have physical resources of their own which they have mixed their labor, guided by thoughts in their head. Will they be restricted in their use of information based on a contract they were not party to?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: