Against Intellectual Property

I find reading libertarian theory fascinating. I'm not a libertarian at all, never have been and never will be, but reading what they have to say has always struck my interest. I think their one of the most intellectually consistent and self-reflective political ideologies on the spectrum. They're not riddled with hypocrisies like standard issue conservatives or intellectually bankrupt like liberals. They know what they believe and they want to push it to its absolute extremes because they think it will lead to a more free and fair society. I find that noble.

On a related note, I also sincerely believe that the world would be a better place for the vast majority of people if all intellectual property laws were completely abolished. I wanted to read a book that took this belief seriously and elaborated on it with more evidence than I could bring myself to providing.

Before reading this book, I didn't realize it was going to be right-libertarian philosophical thought experiments. My next book on the subject will be “Information Doesn't Want to Be Free” by Cory Doctorow, which should come to a similar conclusion as this book, but from a more anti-capitalist angle.

“Natural-rights,” “Utilitarian analysis,” “first-occupier homesteading rule,” “privity,” “usufruct,” These are all words & phrases that I apparently was supposed to know the meaning of before reading this book, but did not.

I'm not really on board with private property rights, and I see IP as an extension of private property (like the factory) instead of personal property (like the toothbrush) and therefore am not a big fan.

The main points the author makes are:

• There is no evidence that copyright and patent laws are needed to spurn the production of creative works and innovations.
• There is no evidence that IP laws show net gains in wealth.
• The IP laws' lengths are arbitrary (20 years for trademarks, death of author+70 years for copyright, etc (of course the author didn't even bother mentioning the fact that Disney is the only reason why US copyright laws keep getting longer))
• “Both the inventor and the theoretical scientist engage in creative mental effort to produce useful, new ideas. Yet one is rewarded, and the other is not. ...it is arbitrary and unfair to reward more practical inventors and entertainment providers, such as the engineer and songwriter, and to leave more theoretical science and math researchers and philosophers unrewarded. The distinction is inherently vague, arbitrary, and unjust.”
• “The function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources, by allocating exclusive ownership of resources to specified individuals (owners). [...] Property rights are not applicable to things of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things. [...] “Since use of another's idea does not deprive him of its use, no conflict over its use is possible; ideas, therefore, are not candidates for property rights.” AKA: you can't exhaust an idea, as it is infinite. Therefore, it cannot be deemed your property.
• “There is, in fact, no reason why merely innovating gives the innovator partial ownership of property that others already own.” If you own a copyright or trademark, it means you can control what everyone does with their own property. Which they say is a violation of some homestead whatnot, idk I can only comprehend so much libertarian theory before my eyes glaze over.

At least the book was short.

I do not recommend this book to anyone.