How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism | Stephan Kinsella

[ShrugMeSilly245]

Bad jokes, but good points.

[MiloDC]

Dude mentions The Pirate Bay by name. "Real pirates, not Pirate Bay pirates." Automatic like.

[markdeming1989]

I'm persuaded by this idea but still confused a bit. If I sell a book and someone else copies it, like titles, text and all making an exact duplicate, is this something ip could/ should protect against?

[Hvalfisk]

@markdeming1989 if you write a book, and someone copies it and puts their own name in place of yours and sells it. Copyright should protect against that. But if someone makes an exact copy of it and gives the copy to his friend. Copyright shouldn't stop this.

[onelineproof]

The idea of Intellectual Property is a JOKE and is not compatible with the ideas of free speech and competition.

[FightinWordsUSA]

This guy needs to debate George Mason Law professor Adam Mossof or Ayn Rand Institute president Yaron Brook instead of the cherry-picked strawmen he claims are the "best" arguments he's ever heard in defense of IP. Nowhere in this mess of a speech does he address the objective moral argument for property as a value produced by a rational mind.

[aenkmnp]

@FightinWordsUSA IP is not logically compatible with real P.

Two people on an island - one produces a fishing net, the other guy takes it without permission -> it's theft -> force is permitted. Now imagine the other guy copies him and produces a net for himself by homesteading property and mixing it with his own labor. If IP was true the first guy is allowed to use force to stop him. How is that moral?

v=jQeaVBIMnoI

[drtxprt]

What a moron. He should just move to Somalia where his anarchy ideal is concretized. He secretly knows, but has so little integrity to admit, that anarchy is fear and death. He says he has never encountered a legitimate argument for intellectual property rights. What about the moral argument? What about Rand? He doesn't think in terms of morality, just like all of his Rothbardian retard friends. Notice how they advocate for anarchy, but never move to countries that have already implemented it.

[aenkmnp]

@drtxprt LOL congratulations on repeating the "Somalia is libertarian" claim like your average left-wing retard.

The "morality" of IP is not compatible with the morality of real P.

v=jQeaVBIMnoI

[berwyn95]

@drtxprt Somalia is not an anarchy

[ALFTUBE50]

@drtxprt For the same reason you don´t go to North Korea.

[Frenchyification]

I am still divided on the issue but this video did make me rethink twice about intellectual property. It is true that it is wrong not to allow competition in so many small fields, such as HIV vaccine research, etc. but at the same time, what incentive would scientists have to innovate, invent, and research if they won't be credited for it?

[Buffalo122333]

Balloon juice, 20 minutes of hot air then 5 of "trust me it'll be better".

The best argument against the current copyright laws is that today they're impossible to enforce without draconian punishments and a complete destruction of the right to privacy.

I'd be willing to try life without copyrights for a decade or two to see what happens, but without some sort of way to get paid for my ideas, screw the world I'm keeping them to myself.

At least he didn't go into the usual socialist rant.

[erelpc]

The patent act is very easy to argue against. Whereas with copyright, even though I'm also against this legislative act as well and believe that people would find alternative business models if it didn't exist, I find it difficult to defend my position.

[joeseth05]

I like the way he makes his points, thoroughly

[vspqbd]

For those interesting in a more in depth philosophical look at this, in addition to reading the link I posted below, read this one too: mises(DOT)org/daily/3631

[vspqbd]

To those saying we need IP for utilitarian reasons; for your benefit: mises(DOT)org/daily/5025

[wsp67326]

when you take away the incentive for research and development, no one will undertake research and development... perhaps the best thing to do in our country is institute compulsory licensing if the patent owner does not practice the claimed invention in the US (i.e., patent trolls) and thus have set low royalty payments. But, to say that IP is not important to the economy (in the past and certainly in the future) is just wrong. His copyright stance is quite silly, too, IMHO.

[ourben]

All property hampers humanity. You guys are a hoot.

[Sivels]

@ourben yeah, right, who needs self-ownership?

[ourben]

@Sivels No property infers no property. I'll give you a minute to let that sink in....

Get it yet?

[Sivels]

@ourben "No property infers no property." no I don't get it, please enlighten me, o wise one, on what appears to be nonsense.

[ourben]

@Sivels If nobody owns things then nobody owns you. And besides that, people aren't property, they're agency.

[Sivels]

@ourben agency for who? themselves?

and how can you deny that you own your body, that your mind controls your body?

[ourben]

@Sivels I don't deny you possess a body, just as I don't deny you may possess the change in your pocket. As for property, that doesn't exist until you say it does and I agree.

Nature doesn't give a shit what you think you own, because nature doesn't care what you think. Property is not real, it's an idea - sometimes a good one, sometimes a bad one.

[Sivels]

@ourben so the computer that you're typing on right now is not your possesion? You're not controlling it? Property is just the right to exclude. So saying that property doesn't really make sense, but I guess you meant to say property rights don't exist... Property rights is the justification for the enforcement of property, again, the right to exclude i.e. exclude people from your home.

[ourben]

@Sivels The computer I'm using is in my possession and I think of it as my property, but that doesn't mean that it IS. You might think it's yours and come and take it from me, but that won't mean it IS. Rights are created by actions, they don't actually exist. All that exists is power, it really isn't hard to understand.

[Sivels]

@ourben Power doesn't exist either.

[ourben]

@Sivels Power does exist. It's what makes the universe go round.

[Sivels]

@ourben Why is it "right" to own property? If you hold as your core premise that it's right for you to live your life, to sustain your life etc. etc. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since a man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. Without property rights, you're a slave.

[ourben]

@Sivels How can you possibly be a slave if nobody else has a right to what you affect? You have the power to do things and you have the power to protect things. Rights are made up and disseminated to give people prescience of consequences.

For instance, my right to my bicycle is really a simplification of "there will be repercussions should you impede my control of this bicycle" to "this is my bicycle".

When you say you have a right, you are really saying you have the will to defend something.

[Shrunkenhead61]

To me, patents, and the like, are just fear of competition. He goes much further but as a consumer, I think I would like better products. Like he mentioned, I'm tired of either Apple or Microsoft. There is Linux but Linux proves that IP is bad. The amazing run-a-round Linux has to do to get the tools mac and Microsoft secure is just sad. Microsoft takes from Linux easily.

Technology and patents hurt the medical field too and in doing so, health care goes up.

[skytrooper1980]

Stephen Kinsella fucking ROCKS! I love this guy and his way of thinking.

[skytrooper1980]

And to patent genes is totally nuts. It's a natural creation, not artificial, and no one man or organization should be able to patent genes. That really really holds progress back, because the next guy might have a better idea for the genes than the so called "owner." It's actually a bit sickening.

[Gamebox27]

@skytrooper1980 Maybe that's why cloning hasn't started yet. They haven't found a way to regulate it and reward someone with a good design.

[skytrooper1980]

This is a fuzzy area of ethics. You're talking about information, which has no physical form. It doesn't even really exist. To possess an idea is morally unethical after the idea leaves the creator's brain and enters humanity. At that point, to say that others can't experiment with the idea is to trample on civil liberties. Period. It inhibits democracy, because people should have the right to freely exchange ideas. It would create competition of course, but is better for the greater good

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@skytrooper1980 democracy itself hampers civil liberties, for the minority of a "nation" if nothing else. even a republic tends to swiftly break down into tyranny when people realize their Bill of Rights is nothing more than words, subject to interpretation by the same majority who holds all power. all government IS a force of aggression and coercion on individuals, thus it is immoral. currency is the ultimate ballot; all votes count, not just those of the majority... VOLUNTARYISM FTW

[skytrooper1980]

I think I agree with Kinsella. I have been thinking about net neutrality a lot lately. It's basically a question of democracy. Basic ideas of the Enlightenment. He is absolutely on the right path in his thinking. Patents have always been nothing more than a means to power, basically a result of greed or monetary ambition. Service, on the other hand, and material, should have value. This is deep philosophical, democratic thinking. 

[etellurian]

Does intellectual property hamper an economy when there is no capital to pay for such content? Can we still shop our ideas around the world with an understanding that this content is intended for trade? What happened to all the people that understand and support innovative solution intended to sustain peace?

E-T

[099749]

Thankyou for the presentation

[TimothyBragan]

Good info. Tho he says Copyright wasn't and shouldn't be seen as a natural right, but merely a societal tool. The disconnect here is that notions of rights are mere societal tools as well, not anything else. Questions of usefulness of such tools are of course open to debate and inquiry. IP sure doesn't seem very useful to the majority, tho it obviously is to certain groups. Natural rights might prove to stay useful, but I'd propose to at least drop some of the surrounding moral mysticism.

[099749]

cont....

best use of the idea with things chaged and added to it, is what generates new things and compertician between these different uses of that idea, hence ip- will always be a negative, interms of market vibrancy, innovation and compertician. Ofcourse the IP people seek to maintain and dominate what they have and own rather than innovating- possibly because often ideas are stolen- and not understood by the thief.

Ip also allows for compertician-ideas to be buried, by the lience holder!

[Nintendomanwill]

His arguments are more subtle than you seem to think. Property rights are based on a scarcity axiom. Man cannot limit by pure defence that which is superabundant like (above water) the air we breathe. Man needs property rts to avoid conflict despite conflictual ends/plans over/with scarce resource

On a side note get rid of the racist video on your profile. I don't give a shit if you're racist. But that's some fucking smart tactic to raise credibility for Libertarianism you've got there dumbarse

[MillionthUsername]

@TimothyBragan "The disconnect here is that notions of rights are mere societal tools as well, not anything else."

Says who? I'm sick of this weak-minded bourgeois relativism/subjectivism/collec­tivism that has rotted the core of western philosophy. If you have no base of objective morality, then you have no valid argument against slavery and murder. Period. If we have no rights by nature, then why even speak of justice as it also would be merely the arbitrary product of the collective whim.

[swu880]

@TimothyBragan

Kinsella did not make a normative statement that the copyright "should be seen as a societal tool". He is makin a positive statement- merely stating fact- the founders & writers of consitution did not view the copyright as a natural right but a societal tool. THIS IS A POSITIVE STATEMENT NOT NORMATIVE ONE.

natural right actually have their roots in deeep property rights derived from the time before institions

[truevoice08]

@TimothyBragan property rights are not social constructs since there is nothing to replace it with. The issue is whether you are consistent with it or not. Hans Hoppe has already addressed the arguments of the utilitarians.

[MaikUniversum]

bravooo. Amazing video :)

[punkjewellery]

Very interesting.The powers that be are coming after the internet, using the same old techniques.

[Buffalo122333]

There are actually many arguments about utility here.

Would technology progress faster or slower without patents.

Would their be more or fewer books, movies, music and games without copyrights.

Can we enforce IP laws and remain free.

The over riding question is the last.

There will be no freedom left if our government is allowed to touch the internet in any way.

[Lifeblood086]

Great lecture! I am tempted to take your course coming up.

[KartChampion]

Patentscan be very helpful, because they require "Full Disclosure" of how to make and use the idea. If only 1 person new the secret to coldfusion and he was able to make a device that did so, he and the very few who might figure out his device would have an effective monopoly, where as full disclosure through the patent process would allow far more people to understand & enter the coldfusion business, therby making it cheaper; however, 20yrs is WAY overkill for incentive to disclose the info.

[Tuxie]

THIS is the guy who should be your next president, or at least finance minister.

[richardcadbury]

If NAFTA really were a free trade agreement, the text would fit in this box....

[nanciqwerty]

IP cannot work on a desert island with 10 people, and it would be counter productive to try.

The only difference between that and the real world is the amount of force that can be mustered.

[bonkers45]

@nanciqwerty I'm imagining beating anyone else who copies my fishing net. How dare they catch more fish!!

[nanciqwerty]

@bonkers45 Don't let Peter Schiff hear you say that. His recent book is all about catching more fish!

[christo930]

He did not put forth one single argument against IP. He didn't lay out any kind of theory, all he did was talk about the history.

[etzel33]

This is surreal. I'd figure mises institute would be all about Rand's argument for IP. Interesting spin. Also didn't know austrian economics was rooted in allodial, private ownership of natural resources.

[salmongutter]

@etzel33

Jeffrey Tucker on IP and Rand:

mises.org/daily/3864

[Guest655321]

@etzel33 Lol, there's really a lot more anti than pro-rand sentiment going around there. Mozart was a Red for a perfect example.

[etzel33]

@Guest655321 i'm not deep into the mises thing, it's just like required reading for LP 101. Not too happy about their views on natural resources/ land but that's a big topic. Too bad, this IP thing would fit nicely... if people want exclusive use maybe they should pay for it.

[andrewclunn]

He just converted me from a pro-IPer.

[reapfreak]

I don't get pro IP people. I can understand some kind of social norm that recognizes the first person to achieve something, like the first scientist to publish. The problem is whether or not you use lethal force to protect "ownership" of a nonscarce good.

[martintheguitarist]

Not clear why you would have the right to own a business you worked hard for but not a book you spent years on writing. Same holds for any scientific research.

Patents should be about justice and not innovation. If someone devoted a lot of time and effort to develop an idea they deserve protection.

[Hendo1974]

Another Good economics piece!

[jaminunit]

A very very good speech, thanks for sharing.

[christo930]

@jaminunit A good speech? He spoke for 25 minutes and said nothing. I really like the misses institute and support them, but this speech sucked.

[eagleeye1975]

So far, halfway through the entire thing, this guy's entire argument is the genetic fallacy... "don't like it, because of its roots."

After watching the rest of it... we also see cherry picking arguments, appeal to ridicule, strawman... this is all utter rubbish.

[bjarnet3]

This is incredible good!!! Amazing!!! Can't wait to share this...

[Xasew]

Never seen anyone come up with a good principled argument in favor of IP, but it seems that even the utilitarians are completely lost. Mostly the arguments start with the assumption that IP promotes innovation and that there are no alternatives. And they ignore history as much as they can. Obviously it's easy to argue if your assumptions already have the answer in them...

[CurtHowland]

@Xasew The only "principle" I've seen from pro-IP types is that they own themselves, so they own what they create, including the ideas. The patterns of the words on the page, that would not exist unless they had assembled them in that pattern.

But then they have to justify the LIMITS put on that ownership: Fair use, copyright duration, parody and the rest.

The only attempt I've seen is to equate those with easement on real estate.

So there you are. The only pro-IP argument from principle.

[45means45]

proper tea!

[lstdy]

I've been uneasy with IP for a while and I like his information, but he really needs to work to craft a better argument. Mr. Kinsella, consider submitting your manuscript someone who can help you structure your ideas. Consider talking to an English professor or student who specializes in rhetoric. If you'd like, I could point you in the right direction.

[CurtHowland]

@lstdy You might be interested in "Against Intellectual Monopoly", just search for it, it's online gratis as one might expect.

[chuska8383]

I had never thought of the patent system from that perspective. Very interesting lecture. Thanks!

[schulwitz]

So this guy believes that if I spend 5 years writing a 1000 page book it is completely fair for others to take credit for my book and sell it to others?

.

If a movie studio spends $400 million making a movie, it is legitimate for me to screen the movie and sell copies of it to others because the movie studio has no rights to controlling distribution?

.

These are the most basic arguments for copyright and this guy doesn't even address them, he just sets up strawman arguments.

[kamikazee55]

@schulwitz There are ways to protect books and art and stuff like that without intellectual property. It would basically be done through either implied or written contract, that when purchasing a book or film that it cannot be copied.

Either way, you have to admit that the current patent system is a mess.

[CurtHowland]

@schulwitz "f I spend 5 years writing a 1000 page book"

Labor theory of value.

"spends $400 million making a movie"

Labor theory of value.

"These are the most basic arguments for copyright"

I agree, pretty much ever argument for I.P. is merely a restatement of the Labor Theory of Value.

[schulwitz]

@CurtHowland

.

Sorry but I didn't follow any of that.

[CurtHowland]

@schulwitz "Sorry but I didn't follow any of that."

Your argument is the "labor theory of value".

That, because someone worked really hard to do something, they are entitled to compensation.

Osama bin Laden worked really hard to tear down some big buildings. Is he entitled to be paid for his years of hard work?

No? Why not? Because the Labor Theory of Value is invalid.

[shroomingnewman]

@CurtHowland what a moronic analogy

[BillySmooth55]

Great points, very interesting history.

[fluff125]

LOL Lecture fail!!!! Hearsay evidence, cherrypicking opposition arguments, and the failure to realize that the exponential growth of technology afforded by patents greatly outweighs the cost.

Grant a company a monopoly of a product for 20 years (even though it is a monopoly, he still must beat the price of the previous technology), and then make the technology freely available for the REST OF TIME. It is fair, it works, and if a little inefficient or vague, we are all still better off for it.

[davejoe75]

@fluff125 He actually addresses your "utilitarian view" at min 21 - 25.

Why would you want to impose a monopoly for 20 yrs? How would the product improve once its better than previous?

Andy Grove, former Intel CEO, has said on numerous occasions that we need to get rid of IP/Copyright as it's become an arms race with the consumer losing out. He says innovation is thwarted bc too many companies are sitting on too many IP's. Having been in tech for 14 yrs, I agree.

[099749]

11.10- to- 12.20- agree completly, not free market!

[099749]

21.37- I think the assumption works under the idea that people will be forced to look else where and think up new ideas, if they want a paternt.

Opposed to:- ideas being used by anyone and everyone. Bottomline is if you give an idea to five different people and ask them to do something with it- they will all generate different things with that idea-

Hands down the latter is better, I.P- supresses others ability to develop and use ideas, for personal gain soley, when in a free market the

[swu880]

@davejoe75

Agreed!

[DoltMasher]

@fluff125

How are we better off for it? And exactly who is we?

[CurtHowland]

@fluff125 "It is fair"

To whom?

And why is it right just because the beneficiaries of it say it's "fair"?

Is that like "fair tax"? "Fair poverty?" "Fair starvation?"

[fluff125]

@CurtHowland Fair to the researcher who spends years of his life devoted to a technology. Fair to the businessman who busts his ass, spending millions of dollars to research a new product. Fair to the writer, who puts his soul into his books.

Fair to all creative people who wish to be free from parasites that would steal their work for no money, and no effort. Fair to the human race, who needs to realize that new technology is the ONLY thing in the long run which improves standards of living.

[CurtHowland]

@fluff125 "the researcher who spends years of his life"

Labor theory of value.

"the businessman who busts his ass"

Labor theory of value.

"new technology is the ONLY thing in the long run which improves standards of living"

Yep, I agree, which is why sharing as widely as possible as quickly as possible is such a good idea.

Thank you for opposing intellectual monopoly.

[CurtHowland]

@fluff125 "Fair to all creative people who wish to be free from parasites that would steal their work for no money, and no effort."

Such people have the ultimate monopoly, and always have. They can choose when, where and to whom to release their work.

Or not to release it at all.

Something cannot be stolen, which is never released.

Do you imagine your "parasites that would steal" argument is new? It is, in fact, the only argument other than the labor theory of value that I have ever seen.

[cool70200]

interesting, thx

[imyourgod2]

i appreciate the videos thanks