 Somebody approached me with a wish or a question if email addresses would like to be shared and I did not want to do anything without the people's permission. So there will be a list at the front desk where you can maybe the name list of all the participants or you can either write your email address in there or not if you prefer not to make your email address known to others. So whoever is interested, please take advantage of the opportunity. And David still wanted to make a brief announcement too. Could you have the microphone? Maybe first concerning also the email address I was asked by some of you whether I could send you these slides of this morning. So you could look at it closer, you know, with all the writings. So my email address to just give it to you is D-U-E-R, swiss legal in one word, swiss legal. This is the name of our law group, dot C-H. And then may I write at this, some people asked me whether what I gave in the speech is also somewhere written in an article or so, there are not long and thick books of me yet on this matter. I do have two books here that you're not as sophisticated and scientific as the one of Hans. And namely they are not so English, they are German. One is Staatsoper Schweiz, which means state opera. Switzerland, you know, the state has a big opera. It's the state house actually as opera house. And the subtitle is few stars, many startists. So this is one, I just have one copy of each. If you want to look at it, those who read the show, if you wanna buy it or order it, so it's here. And the second one is I have a regular column in a newspaper in Switzerland. And these are sort of anarchist columns. And the collection of this is in another book. They are always on Fridays in that newspaper service. Das Wort zum Freitag, the word to the Friday, not to the Sunday, as usual, to the Friday. So this is the second book. Thank you. Which newspaper is it? It's called Basler Zeitung. It's a, people say it's a right-wing newspaper. They are very open and then they have, through all parties, columnists. But I like the newspaper as such, but I'm very independent. I had one column once when I compared IS or EZS with US, I said, well, actually it's about the same thing. US is just, U.S. is just bigger. And that gave huge protests from the newspaper itself. And then this gave me opportunity just to put one on the top because right afterwards these CIA reports came up about torture practices. That was a wonderful example to insist on it anymore. My question is for Stefan Kinsella. It's a question, not an argument. What is the case for private photos and pictures shared over the internet on Facebook and someone else is using it? What is the argumental basis on that? From the IP perspective. What's the justification for using someone else? Using or do they need our permission without permission? What is the case for? Do you mean under current law or under libertarian? Under both. Well, under current law, copyrights, photographs are owned by the photographer. And if you put it online, you still own the copyright, but you're giving a license for people to use it for limited purposes, like viewing it on their browser. If you use it beyond that, unless there's a creative common license attached to it, you could be sued. And the perverse aspect of copyright, let's suppose you're on vacation and you hand your iPhone to a stranger and he takes a picture of your family. He owns the copyright, but you don't know who he is. So you have this great picture, you may be infringing his copyright when you put it on your Apple TV. And there's other perverse aspects of copyright. There are cases where there's someone takes a photograph, they have a copyright in the photograph, and it becomes a best-selling print or something like that. And someone else will go to the same location and recreate the photo by taking their own photograph, and they can be sued by the owner of the first copyright for taking a photograph in that location. Under libertarian law, there would be no property rights, whatsoever, and information at all. Information is not an ownable thing. Information is the impatterning of an owned thing, a physical material resource. Information is never free-floating. It's always the impatterning of a substrate, your brain, electromagnetic waves, a CD-ROM, a USB drive, a hard drive on a computer, and those things are already owned by someone according to the principles Professor Hoppe referred to earlier. The owner of the thing, I own this physical object. It's structured in a certain way, which is the information. I don't own the information and the phone. I own the phone and it has certain features. This phone has a weight, it has an age. Doesn't mean I own the age of the phone. If I did own the age of the phone, I would own lots of other phones in the world that were made on the same day, you see? So the problem with owning an aspect of a thing that you own is it's a universal that applies to any number of instances in the world, and to own that universal feature of the thing would instantly give you ownership claims over other material resources in the world that other people have claims to. This is the very problem with IP. So if you put a photograph online in a free society, then you have to take the risk that other people might actually look at it and use it. On intellectual property rights, there's a funny movement you reported about it on your website where people, some alleged Austrians from Vienna, Mrs. what's her name? From the Hayek Institute. Barbara Coyne. She wants to defend physical and intellectual property rights at the same time. It never occurred to her that that is an absolute impossibility. To give you an example, I whistle a song, you hear this song and you copy it, you whistle the same melody. If intellectual property rights exist, of course I will be able to then sue you for having whistled the same song without having received my permission, but that means that I thereby acquire property rights over your own body. I am then an owner of your vocal chords and whatever it is, and that shows quite clearly that either physical property rights exist or intellectual property rights exist, but both of these things cannot exist simultaneously. It is simply a contradiction. And an actual illustration of that is the happy birthday song, which is in litigation right now. This is literally true. Waiters in restaurants in the US sing a different song because they may be sued for singing the one that's in the movies, which movie studios have to pay licensing fees for. It's another way IP would help movie studios or costs would go down. And I want to read something Hans said in 1988. On a panel with Rockbard and David Gordon and Leland Jager and this ADA at the Mises Institute, I assume, and an audience member said, I have a question for Professor Habba. Does the idea of personal sovereignty extend to knowledge? Am I sovereign over my own thoughts, ideas and theories? And Hans said, in order to have a thought, you must have property rights over your body that doesn't imply that you own your thoughts. The thoughts can be used by anybody who is capable of understanding them. So, Hans understood this with pure proxy ology 30, almost 30 years ago. Then I was still young, yeah. He was a younger. Thiora Dahlrimpel. First of all, I wanted to thank you for a remarkably funny talk on homicide. And I wanted to tell Professor Habba that it was extremely refreshing to hear what should be done with politicians. Now, having said that, don't you think that when you say that a few people have asked you who is the best person you've known and several, and many people have asked you who is the worst person you've known? In a way, echoes the fact that the best person you may know involves a value judgment, whereas what we consider evil echoes of a natural sense of law such that what we libertarians call the non-aggression principle can be naturally recognized by people throughout cultures and times. No, I don't think that's true. I think, I'm afraid, I think people are just salatiously interested in evil in a way that they're not salatiously interested in good. And evil entertains them in a way that good doesn't. And actually, for writers of fiction in particular, I think it's far easier for them to create villains than it is for them to create good people who are interesting. And those who can produce good characters in fiction who are good are actually relatively rare. What you remember is the bad person. So I think there's more to it than that. You shortly discussed it at lunch. When I asked whether that was a good idea to make this speech into this law day, yesterday we had the economic day, today the law day, so was that because this has to do with legal criminal cases? And no, it's just to entertain you, you said. And nevertheless, I think that there is an interesting connection between, for instance, these questions you asked, is anybody bored by this subject? No, certainly not, this is something interesting. And I could imagine that there are connections, for instance, that if things like that, terrible things like that happen, I say terrible things because they are, according to our way of thinking, terrible. What are the reactions of bystanders, of people who read it in the newspaper or hear it? And there are reactions. And if these are horrible things, they are intensive reactions. And there are things going up, they're going up, yeah. That are realities, interesting realities. I think these are realities, also my discipline, the law, should look at much more closer because that's sort of, that's natural law, in a way. Reactions, spontaneous reactions out of certain events, maybe very same reactions, if bad things happen in different cultural connections on different times in the long historical run. There may be other reactions that are very dependent on the circumstances of this culture, of that time. But in any event, these are very interesting questions about out of what, out of what stuff is it made? Is it made? I mean, is it, these are natural laws, it's like gravity, but it's not gravity, other laws, but how are there structures, things like that? I could imagine that it's a very interesting broad field of research that is not used anymore since the national legislatures made these books, you know, where everything is written in and this is enforced just because the state legislatures gave it and not because it's law. Therefore, also therefore, beside other thoughts and other things, I find it was a very interesting part also to this subject. Here's another question for Dr. Delrinble, for Dr. Daniels, excuse me. Are you sure there aren't some more, more specific lessons to be learned from the murders you knew as respect to ethnicity, intelligence and conscientiousness? I don't think there's anything to be learned for about ethnicity. It's true on the whole that the majority of murderers that I saw were not of very high intellectual standards. Well, there is of course a lot of, there's a hidden, there's a hidden homicide, but I actually don't think there's much to be learned from what I said except that I mean, I don't envisage a world in which I would never be able to repeat these stories. I don't think there's a society in which you couldn't find stories like this. There can be more or fewer of them, but I'm afraid I think we are dealing with a very deep, something deeply entrenched in human beings. As I said, as I was saying to somebody, the rate of murder in different societies goes up and down and it varies between societies, it varies within societies. You can examine, you can examine, try and find what you think are the reasons for it, but ultimately, I think I'm not at all religious, but I think ultimately you're dealing with original sin and we will not actually get rid of the original sin. Sorry, I've got a question for Stephen as well. Thank you for liberating my mind. I walked into this room this morning in support of intellectual property protection to a limited degree, of course, it's out now. Thank you for liberating my mind, thinking that J.K. Rowling is the owner of a slave ship. Draw the parallel, but I do have two questions. The first question is there was some pictures stolen and then distributed on discussion forums around the world of various actresses. I think it'll be easier to argue whether the person who stole it can or cannot steal it, but once someone saw it on a forum and then distributed there on, are they completely guilt-free? I mean, according to the principles. And the second question is, and you see this in places where intellectual property rights currently is not really enforced. If I were to make a movie or based on a book written by J.K. Rowling without intellectual property and in the world without intellectual property protection and then use a picture and then use her signature to create the image that she is endorsing this movie, J.K. Rowling is gonna be pretty angry about this. Should she be justified in her anger that she is now seemingly endorsing this movie? And then if someone else was to approach her for the same endorsement, wouldn't that endorsement then be of less value? Yeah, so the first question, in a case where a photograph is private and not widely known, presumably the owner of the material substrate that the photograph is on, you know, their camera, their computer, a piece of paper in their home, it's hard to imagine how someone is going to get access to that without committing some act of trespass, but against her owned property, right? If you hack into someone's computer, you're using their computer without their permission. If you break into their home and find the photograph on their desk, that's another act of trespass. So some kind of tort or crime is usually committed or a contract breach in the case of an employee taking photographs from the employer that he shouldn't do according to the contract. So there's some kind of tort, some kind of wrong, and it should be a crime or an offense. But if he publishes the data online, then everyone who views that photograph and copies it is not committing any offense because information again can't be owned. Now, if it's only limited circulation so far, I might say there's a moral obligation not to participate in making it worse, but once it becomes widely distributed, the cat's out the bag. Same thing with just pure facts. Let's suppose, I don't know, let's say there's a famous actor who's really secretly gay, but he keeps the fact hidden. And someone steals his journal or his diary from his home and finds out that he's gay and publishes it online. So now the whole world knows this actor is gay. Now, are people supposed to forget that fact? It's just information about the world, right? They know it now. If a movie studio refuses to hire him for a certain role now because he's got this image and he loses money financially, could he sue the movie studio for not hiring him? I don't think so. He does have an obligation. That would go to the damages. He is owed by the trespasser who did the original act. And what was the second question? About taking J.P. Rolls extra clean. Oh, yeah. So in such a case, in general, taking her, using her photograph and her signature would be permissible because it shows information. Unless it's used to give the impression that she did endorse it, which is a lie. So that could be an act of fraud, but it would be a fraud committed on the customers of the person making the movie. So if you go see the movie, assuming J.K. Rowling had endorsed it, then you would have a contract breach or a fraud claim maybe to get a refund of your ticket or something like that. So, and Rowling, all she had to do is just announce this guy that was lying. I didn't endorse it. So her real endorsement of another movie would still have value because people would be able to tell the difference. It's just a matter of fact that they could be discovered. And before I wanted to back on the photograph question, this is a picture of, has anyone seen this monkey picture, the macaque? So this is a case where some photographer's camera was taken by this monkey and he took some selfies and they were good pictures. And now a copyright lawyer's around the world are confused about the copyright status because this is, they're puzzling their heads over this, which shows that this is not natural law because the author of a photograph is the copyright holder, but monkeys don't have rights. So most people, I think there is no copyright in the photograph. It's just public domain, even though 120 years haven't passed yet. So it's a strange case. And this issue comes up also in increasingly, increasingly with technological automated pictures like security cameras or maybe the Google car driving around town or this little device you throw the camera up and it hovers and takes pictures. Who's really taking the picture? It's an, it's a computer doing it. So does Google own the copyright to the images in their street view that their car is taken? It's hard to say. So, which just shows the absurdity of this legislative system and the unnaturalness of it. Can I just ask you a question? What constitutes a trespass so that supposing someone is legally in my house is it a trespass if he takes a photograph of something in my house that maybe I wouldn't want photographed? Would that be a trespass? It would. I think so. I think in libertarian terms, the general view of trespass would generally be the use of someone's resources, their property without their consent. And when you enter someone's home, you could say there's an implicit set of rules set down by the owner or there's a contract and you are not permitted to use their house in this way. Just like if you loan someone your car, they're permitted to drive it around town maybe for the day but they're not permitted to paint it another color or do something else with it. So in general, I would view that as an act of trespass, yes. What is the law currently about? I, taking a photograph from someone's house, I actually don't know if the law would regard that as a trespass. Do you have any thoughts on that? No, I don't know what the law would regard it. I don't think the law has a strict concept of property and trespasses we would have, so I'm not sure. We have another lawyer? Oh, David, do you know? I would say, but very, you know, just to think aloud, trespassing is trespassing against, as we call it, absolute rights in contrast to relative rights. Relative rights are those between persons and absolute rights are rights on something, on a picture, on a book or the things like that and also on his own privacy. And in this sense, it's an absolute right, so once you touch it or you get in conflict with it, it's trespassing. I think that it's not my specialty. I think that, like in Europe or Switzerland, one would look at it. Well, another maybe related thing would be if you confide some information to a priest or a doctor or a lawyer, and then that person reveals that information to the world. It's not a trespass, it's too late for it to be a trespass, it's just some kind of contract breach. So there's an implicit contract between the two or an explicit contract. So it's a breach of contract and damages could be owed for the harm that is a consequence of that breach of contract. Yeah, if I may, a short comment on this discussion. If you listen to the examples given, most of them are simply trivial and would never come before a court because it's just things that happen. But when you get a very legalistic mindset, such as has developed in the United States you have more lawyers than economic bubbles, I think. I don't know what the standard is for many lawyers, but you have these small, very small things get blown up into legal arguments and they are crossing unfortunately the world. You mentioned the Happy Birthday song in the rest songs. Well, in the Netherlands, for example, and some people from the Netherlands are here, we used to have the Netherlands and Flemish people to St. Nicholas. Who's a child-friendly saint. He brings presents to the children and the presents that are carried in a big bag by a moor, so a black-faced person. And of course we have a scandal about this because this is racism for some reason and colonialism and racism. So things which are never a subject of litigation suddenly become translated into legal categories and they are exploited and now it's big business for newspapers and for lawyers. So when you have these examples of intellectual property rights concerning photographs and things like that, I think it is important to stress the scale of the damage people should be able to argue the degree to which they have damaged. I do not follow you saying here is a line and whatever goes on that side is not the business of a court of law and whatever is on the other side is certainly the business of the, I think some judgment and moderation is in order. On a couple of more recent trivial examples or not so trivial, but recently you might have heard what is the song, the Pharrell song that's similar to the Marvin Gaye song allegedly? Anyone know? Robin Thicke song in Pharrell, Blurred Lines. So they lost a copyright suit from the state of Marvin Gaye recently because the songs have some similar looking feel or something, cowbells or something used in it. And the minute work song down under has this flute riff in it, which is like 12 notes of it that are similar to this old children's song Cuckoo Burr sits in the old gum tree and they were sued and lost. And I think the floutest or one of the members got so depressed about that, I think he committed suicide later. It's terrible. I have two questions related to the definition of property. How does it figure into reputation and free speech? In other words, defamation, libel and so on, like where are the boundaries? And the second question is we, it's usually assumed that property started with human beings. In other words, property is a human invention and it's attacked for the same reason. But there's a book published in the 1960s by Robert Ardrey, the territorial imperative. And the subtitle is the animal origins of property and nations. Very interesting book. And of course animals have territories, they mark their territories. And it even has biological effects. So it seems that animals are wired to know when they are trespassing. For example, a smaller animal on its own territory will defeat a larger animal that's trespassing on its territory because of hormonal changes and so on. So it's very interesting. Kind of like an animal version of the home field advantage in sports. So I'm curious about any comments related to the continuity or difference between animal primitive property and human property? I think that should not be overemphasized, these analogies. Because so far nobody came up with the idea that we should try animals for things that they have done. As soon as we start that then we might want to think a little bit more seriously about it. But I'm waiting for the day when the dog will be put in front of a court of justice or some mosquito will be tried. In order to have rights as Murray Walsh bought. But historically, trials of animals were very frequent in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. And there's a wonderful book about the trials of animals. And they used to try insects. And there were lawyers appointed, this is perhaps they could bring this into America actually, give more employment for lawyers. But pigs and so on were tried for eating the things in the grain silos and things. But obviously to not avail, right? Well, they were often executed. But sometimes they were acquitted. Lawyers, too? Well, of course now animals are executed without due process all the time in slaughterhouses. They're just declared to be illegal. On the animal issue, I agree with Hans about not making too many analogies. However, you can distinguish and property is the legal institution of the right to control a resource. Crusoe alone on his island would have no property rights, but he would still have the need to employ scarce means as part of action. And animals as well do this because they also live in the physical world. So that is probably the reason animals would have no property rights. So that is probably the reason animals, you know, a dog can recognize his dog bowl and he has a certain territoriality over it. But I will say that birds don't try to copyright their songs. On the first question about reputation rights. So typically intellectual property is regarded as a patent which covers inventions, trademark which is naming or marking which is actually a type of reputation right. Copyright which is creative works and trade secrets which is the right to not reveal secrets. Defamation law which covers libel and slander. Libel is the written form of defamation. Slander is the oral form of defamation. Defamation is a right to reputation and objectivists for example believe in that. Rothbard has a great chapter in the ethics of liberty called on knowledge true and false where he just eviscerates the entire case. And actually I believe defamation law should be regarded as a type of IP because it's very similar in the rationales given to it and it's invalid for the same reasons. As Rothbard recognized although he didn't think of it as a type of IP as he pointed out to have a right to reputation effectively means you own other people's brains because you're controlling what they think about you. I don't believe there's a reputation right. I don't think people own their reputations whatsoever. If I would own my reputation I could sue almost the entire world for saying something that I feel hurts my reputation. Yes except the courts would rule you have no reputation to lose. Coming back to the animal thing I'm very actually keen that we shouldn't use analogies from the animal world because in the animal world it's so extensive that you can find an analogy for absolutely anything really. And if you look at the preface to Dawkins his first book The Selfish Gene there's a man called Triverse who's a very clever biologist but he actually says in that preface that work on the social bees, wasps and ants demonstrates that there is no difference between the status of male and female. Now we can argue you can say what you like about the relations between men and women but it can't possibly be based on what the bees and the ants and the wasps do. So I think actually this kind of reasoning is completely false and once human consciousness and self reflection comes in it changes things absolutely and makes a categorical difference between man and the animals. Let me say one more thing on reputation because there is defamation law now I think it makes the public more gullible and more credulous because if someone tells an outrageous story about someone which is a lie people are more likely to believe it because they figure well if it wasn't true then they would have been sued for defamation. So in a world where there were no defamation laws people would take these things with a grain of salt because they know people are free to lie basically. But then you try to say something for half an hour already but may I add just the strong thing to this issue of animals I'm not that skeptical against these analogies of course I would also say that there is a categorical difference between bees and human beings but I think for instance human beings and chimpanzees are much closer together than chimpanzees to the bees and bluntly said I would say apes have law they have law structures and you can observe it look at it you can make experiments or look how they behave in their group and there are situations at least just to look at maybe that not answers the whole question but there are situations where there are conflicts a bit what I showed this morning here there are conflicts one goes to the other takes something away he shouts others come in and then there is something like a court there is a third one maybe some with authority in the group and both sit before this third independent person and he shouts at them and makes something and then this conflict is solved so this happens of course there is a lot to interpret again of it but I think just when you try to find the natural law somehow out of the nature then at least it's very interesting to look at people that are close to us in brain capacity and everything but are not us because once we look at us we are always biased in a way but we look at colleagues of us that are quite close but not the same maybe we are more objective I know this won't be a role? and that would be a whole discussion but I would rather tend to such this is just our description of things using human categories to describe entities of which we simply do not know if these categories apply to them we describe it like this and I find these descriptions also very instructive, interesting and so forth I read these things too but all of these things say there is an independent party and they have a fight and so forth this is all using our knowledge that we have about humans and then metaphorically projecting it to animals as well there is absolutely no way of ever proving that these metaphorical descriptions are actually accurate descriptions in order to use human categories you must be able to somehow speak you must be able to somehow explain yourself and so forth and none of that can ever be observed but we happen to disagree on this there are a few things even the two of us we are always at these panels we are the two anarchists close together and so it's fine that we have some scope we beat it out tonight can I comment? can we settle this democratically? out of the conflict comes the sohushi okay my vote counts for five could I comment on one thing? there is a tendency to look at children as they're growing up and even Mises says that children sometimes act as savages and they come to some conclusions from children even once a person who's originally from Cuba he told me look children when they have something they immediately say mine so he's saying that that's their nature or that's the nature of humans and I think a lot of conclusions people reach about how humans evolved they are from observations of children yes of course babies can't act they learn how to act the first things are just motions we learn how to act babies can't speak they learn how to speak and of course we can observe that at some point this transition occurs yes from the study of children we can learn a lot we can also learn if you look at Jean Piaget's studies for instance on when children are capable of performing mathematical operations when they develop some sort of consciousness when they develop the idea of you did something right you did something wrong all of this proceeds in certain stages which are relatively stable stages but not all people go through all the stages at the equal speed but they all go through them in the same order and some never reach the highest stages of human capabilities that other people can perform if I can just make a quick comment on private property and human action before I ask the questions it seems to me that private property is an unavoidable consequence of any human action even in the Garden of Eden where there's no scarcity at all out of an infinity of apples the minute that I stretch my hand to pick an apple that particular apple is mine by the very fact that I have acted on it and then if I proceed and peel the apple or cut into slices that makes it even more mine if there's no property there will be no motivation for human action there would be no human purpose for human action in the Garden of Eden there would be only goods means things that I recognize as means in order to achieve certain ends but it only makes sense to talk of property if conflicts arise and we have to define what is mine once I pick that apple this particular apple is mine if you were to take it there would be conflict but in the Garden of Eden that question would never arise well if I peel the apple if I'm the only one on the island the question never arises I simply do it that's it two questions one for Stefan Kinsella the question of IP has been fairly controversial even within libertarian circles although I think the consensus is probably moving in your direction Rothbard for example thought there is a case for copyright as opposed to patent a case in contract law for copyright what is the state of play among libertarian thinkers now and in particular have you had this discussion say Einrand of aficionados Einrand was almost paranoid on the question of intellectual property in favor of intellectual property and the other question is for Tony Daniels with your contact personal contact with a number of murderers has that affected in any way and in what way you're thinking of the death penalty alright I know some objectivists who are now against intellectual property and I know a few anarchist objectivists so not all objectivists here even to this I've actually got a web post where I list the few objectivists I know who have come around on IP my impression is that most libertarians never thought about IP very much until it became a big issue after the internet in 1995 Einrand was in favor of it I think because it was in the constitution and because she was a novelist so she was self-interested and she revered the constitution 100 years ago so there was a big debate in Liberty magazine between like TAC-CAC and Benjamin Tucker about IP there was a big debate about it in the 1800s between free market economists who opposed to it because they saw it as intruding into the market and Lysander Spooner even was insane insanely bad on IP even though he was good on so many other things he like like Galambos who is probably the craziest ever on IP believed in perpetual copyrights and patents so they would last forever so we would be paying royalties now for the use of fire to cook food it would just be we would die as a race because no one could move you'd have to get permission from everyone and we would just die off my impression is as libertarians started looking at this issue by and large they're opposed to it there's a few empiricists utilitarian minded and menarchist types and constitutionalists who are still in favor so my impression is virtually all anarchists left anarchists and the anarcho-capitalists pretty much all against it most Austrian libertarians are against it left libertarians seem to be against it radical libertarians seem to be against it by and large there is still some debate but honestly I get asked all the time hey would you do a debate on IP who would you suggest on the other side that's any good I literally don't know anyone who has a good argument for IP not even one that's plausible Richard Epstein mouths off about it but he doesn't he doesn't produce any empirical evidence to back up his empirical case there's an objective named Adam Massoff who keeps threatening to unbuzz them onto the world the true objective is argument for IP that Rand had never really gave and we're still waiting to see something that makes sense but their argument basically is that rights come from the creation of what they call values and you own the values you create they don't have a proper understanding of theory of value that we don't own values we demonstrate that we value things by acting to to achieve them but value is not a substance or a thing out there in the world that you own you could call an object that you produced a value but you own it because it's an object that you produce it's got nothing to do with the ownership of values so I think that's the current state of play Mahlup was against it, Hayek was against it, Mises was against it and the Austrian tradition almost all economists were against intellectual yeah and Rothbard's argument on copyright is confused I don't think he, when he used the word copyright he clearly did not have in mind what the word copyright means copyright, because his argument included a mousetrap which is an invention which was what patent law covers and his argument looks like it's a contractual argument I think it's a little bit confused but I think the best way to understand it was he was envisioning a web of contracts that people would make they would put limitations of use on objects they sold and he thought that somehow could bind third parties but I think he lost sight of the fact that the information is separable from the underlying own thing and he should have seen that because of his good argument on defamation if he would have applied his defamation argument to the IP case he would have I think cleared up his mind on the copyright issue Donny Well being a doctor in prison did affect me in the sense that the doctor had to attend an execution and in fact he had to make the person fit for execution which is an interesting concept I mean part of the fitness was the person was in his right mind but it couldn't be so that he learned from experience so it was all very odd and I didn't think I personally could have participated in an execution and I couldn't really and it wasn't just an aesthetic objection and I don't think I could have advocated or else did something that I thought I couldn't do for ethical reasons which is not to say that you didn't meet people who were so terrible that you thought that they deserved to die but that's a different thing entirely and as Hamlet said treat each man after his dessert and who should skate whipping so I'm against the death penalty but it wasn't really actually meeting the murderers that put me off the death penalty okay can I ask a question yes my question is of a strategic nature Dr. Hoppe you spoke about a counter culture in my knowledge that is actually a Marxist term by which through injecting confusion in the public debate and especially the hollowing out of terms you make possible allies to be enemies as you have said how can in your view the libertarian movement in the next 20 years regain the paradigm because this is a very interesting meeting but it is a very isolated phenomenon and I'm very interested to learn how we can reconquer the culture or maybe it's not possible I don't know I indicated what I think can be done you can all go home and try to do the same that I did and thereby create a wider audience being perceived by the outside world ridiculing the present dominant culture I don't see any other ways to do it I do think that I have had some effect with what I have done and I think that can be imitated I would want it to be imitated but as I said it is not an easy thing to do slow process and of course David Durr has of course indicated how by assembling people of like-minded people how they can possibly proceed by initiating legal procedures and creating enough publicity for instance you need also people like the people here who are useful in order to create the publicity to have newspapers reported all sorts of blogs and internet sites reporting about the legal proceedings that we will start against the Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft well that's to take this on that could be an example besides many other examples maybe what is also important to have in mind to such questions is it's really a fundamental change in a way and it's that fundamental that it's almost impossible just that the group comes in and says now we want to change the world and then it's done actually in the aftermath I think one can only say oh the history the big stream of history I showed this morning in the end it took a better turn than one was afraid there are many signs that go in a very bad direction to this one world state when it's about tax collection and fight against terrorism then even USA and Russia and China work together so these are horror scenarios so there is a strong stream in that direction and in a way we can in one way we can just hope that it won't go definitely in that direction that the cause will change before and under this you then it's worthwhile very much worthwhile to try to to strengthen those tendencies that goes in that direction so only if there are tendencies in that direction and I think one can find it in groups like that and in other discussions that there are tendencies that there are ways of thinking in that direction then it's very useful to enforce them to strengthen them to discuss with people about them and to try to find fields of specific actions such as for instance this lawsuit or other possibilities okay I think we have reached our time limit so ask the other questions privately afterwards thank you for coming I'll see you tonight a little bit later