Intellectual Property and Libertarianism | Stephan Kinsella

Presented by Stephan Kinsella at the 2009 Mises University. Recorded 30 July 2009 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Auburn, Alabama.

• Category

  News & Politics

[KevZen2000]

I am glad he is talking about the mythology of Intellectual Property, just another doctrine of the statist religion.

[pipem4n]

Because of the contract. But IP is much much more than the contract as Kinsella explains. If you buy a song and somehow I get a hold on it, than I'm being bound by your contract with which I had nothing to do - this is nuts.

Same goes when refuting state as a club - pay taxes, obey because it's like a club - if you don't like it leave it. But how did I get into this "club". Well involuntarily, I was forced, dragged harrased, threatened and I continuously am.

[Luke McNamara]

Just another Liberal stealing terminology and trying to rewrite history.

[EMCPoint0fView]

Great, really like this guy.

I always take every chance I can to say THANK YOU to the LvMI and all the faculty there!!

[samuils]

You are assuming that if there were no IP laws people would still invent. I will give you an example. In USSR we had no such laws, yet we had many inventions, there were even journals published with many such inventions, none were produced. And I have nothing against corporations equally benefiting, I am against IP theft, which you seem to be all for. International IP laws are different, not to mention there is an expiration date, no one owns patents forever. Ugh..

[Samuel Morales]

Anotherwords, if illegal redistributors, who copy music, or movies, to sell at a cheaper price, that's the actual value of the music, and movies. If a individual wants to copy music, and movies, the costs for him is a computer. Originators don't own anything that is not physically possessed by them. Data can be copied. In a free market, instead of millionaire singers, pop stars, rock stars, record companies, etc, their income would probably be much lower. Society would have cheap music instead.

[Samuel Morales]

The problem arises, what value do music, and movies really have in the context of a free market? Probably far less than a economy with copy right laws. In a free market, sure a invention to get started must taken effort to materialize, but once a invention is created, that's the pay off, enhanced abilities with less cost from now on. Music goes the same, sure, the original production of music might have cost something, but what does the reproduction cost? Far less. Originators don't own anything

[Samuel Morales]

Music, and movies are considered art. Art is art, humans expressed art for thousands of years. Mono Lisa is art, but the original painting is worth a lot of money, fakes are not, because of scarcity. Humans create art because they are artistic. As far as software, it would be probably more pragmatic for vendors who want to maximize profit by creating artificial scarcity, simply by making their software more difficult to use for those excluded, or exclusion technology.

[Samuel Morales]

Very poor analogy. When you rent a hotel, it's just that, renting. You use all the amenities as intended. When you rent a car, it's just that, you renting the car for a intended use. THIS DOES NOT SHIFT PROPERTY RIGHTS AT ALL! Copyright is draconian property, because even if you technically OWN the media, you cannot do what you want with it, as if it is your own property. That's like selling a car to somebody, and dictating who will drive it. That's not property, that's just dumb.