Replies

I think the position of intellectual property rights per se as an infringement on freedom is a bit too extreme to be useful.

On the other hand, a return to the Founders intent "to authors, artists and inventors for a limited time" would be most salutary. Current intellectual property law, but giving commercial interests exclusive rights long beyond the life-time of the originator of the work, is certainly an impediment to the arts, and arguably to the sciences and technology as well.

(As examples, I would point to the refusal of Henry Holt and Company to allow the use of Robert Frost's Fire and Ice as lyrics to a song without payment of royalties--more than thirty years after the author's death and eighty years after the poem's composition, and the destruction of Martha Graham's legacy by her 'artistic executor' who will not allow dancers with muscle memory of her choreography to perform her works.)

On the invention side--and this is particularly pertinent to pharmaceuticals--it was the custom when the government granted monopolies to utilities to regulate their rates. Surely, while there is a social good to be had from granting such monopolies to spur research on the dollar of private industry, such monopolies should (like all government granted monopolies) be regulated. (I'd like to see the same for government granted oligopolies like the bar, the medical profession, etc., but that's off topic here, since those aren't granted on the basis of intellectual property law.)

Many of the arguments against intellectual property rights are without merit. For example, the article says:

"If you have acquired the information legitimately (say, by buying a book), then on what grounds can you be prevented from using it, reproducing it, trading it? Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech and press?"

You aren't prevented from using legitimately acquired information. Most books encourage the use of the information contained in them. Take my own book, "Apple Cider Vinegar, Aluminum Foil, and a Kazoo: How I Cured Myself of Schizophrenia." I would certainly hope that the information in such a book would be useful to someone. Otherwise the nine loyal patrons that have already read it would have had no reason to buy it.

With the exception of large scale swap meets to avoid purchasing the property (such as "Napster"), you're free to trade it and reproduce it. You just can't reproduce it for profit. To be allowed to reproduce it for profit would defeat the very purpose of the copyright.

If you remove the ability to patent intellectual property you also remove the incentive for bringing that property to the public. Perhaps someone would have eventually figured out the light bulb or telephone, but then who would have invested the necessary time and money needed to bring it to the masses?

A similar article was written and posted here at FR on May 13, 2001 by Annalex:

Pursuit of Liberty: Intellectual Property Rights In a Free Society

I am one of those radical libertarians who is completely opposed to the concept of "intellectual property."

I noticed that you did not reply to a single post on this thread, not even to your own post. I am curious where you stand on this issue.

the consumers' moral claim to easily accessible information

Consumers have no valid claim to easily accessible information, regardless of their needs. This disregards the natural and correct interpretation of work-product, where the copyrighted or patented material is produced by the expenditure of labor on part of the producer.

It is the very act of collecting accessible information - and organizing it for "easy access" - that makes the book - the author's work product - valuable. If the information were "easily accessible" to begin with, their would have been no motive to collect the information in the first place.

Software (implementations) are even more problematic. If you invent a new technique - based on common engineering methodologies but applying them in a unique way - and then spend years developing and perfecting the implementation of that technique, you have the right to the fruits of your labors - if you can entice someone to purchase them. The patent you apply for before making any/many details of your design public is the legal protection required to prevent your work product from being stolen.

Finally, the author's an idiot where it comes to applying class action suits for copyright infringement. Suppose you have spent 10,000 hours producing a book. Someone steals the text and publishes it for their own profit. You purchase the book, and file a class-action suit for their having misrepresented the pedigree of their stolen tome.

In the end, you may recover the whole cost of your purchased copy. The pilfering non-author may end up bankrupt. But so will you, having lost 10,000 hours worth of your labor, PLUS whatever money you invested in the prosecution of the lawsuit. They're out of business, but your family's going hungry, too.

I suggest that those who believe this hogwash simply put their work product immediately into the public domain. That will satisfy their twisted consciouses, and will allow me to continue feeding my family.