pull down to refresh
174 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr \ on: Is intellectual property legitimate? AskSN
Anyone answering “yes” should take a look at Stephen Kinsella’s work on the subject.
Hmm, shameless self-promotion.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/absurdity-intellectual-property-laws
Not even remotely as eloquent or smart as Kinsella
reply
Nice article! Helped me understand that point of view. Had a conversation with @k00b about this topic: #903997
I basically agree with the premise. But I'm not as optimistic that information producers can so easily monetize their work... it's not as easy as "making Spotify", so to speak. And one should consider that Spotify itself is a bit monopolistic, achieving its market power through platform externalities.
I'm more of the opinion that IP laws do more harm than good... and even if we lessen the market incentive to produce content, I think the best content creators have always been the intrinsically motivated ones, not the commercially motivated ones.
I think we'll survive and still get good research / good art, even without heavy IP laws.
reply
That's a very high bar. I'm sure you did fine, though.
reply
And, now that I've finished it (perhaps for the second time), I can confirm that you did indeed do a very fine job.
You made a good succinct and intuitive case for why the idea doesn't make sense. It's nice to have companion pieces like this, since not everyone wants to wade through the entirety of Stephen's case.
reply
Y'alls are too kind!
reply
I asked Grok to briefly summarize Stephen Kinsella's work on intellectual property, so here's a TLDR:
Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian legal theorist and patent attorney, is best known for his strong opposition to intellectual property (IP) rights, particularly patents and copyrights. In his influential work, Against Intellectual Property (2008), he argues that IP is incompatible with libertarian principles and property rights. Kinsella contends that ideas and information are not scarce resources like physical property, so granting monopolies over them through IP laws creates artificial scarcity, stifles innovation, and infringes on individual liberty. He asserts that copying or using someone’s idea does not deprive the originator of their property, making IP enforcement a form of coercion that violates the non-aggression principle. Instead, he advocates for a free market where innovation thrives without state-backed IP protections, relying on voluntary contracts and natural incentives. His work has sparked significant debate within libertarian and legal circles, challenging conventional views on IP.
reply
Libertarian ideology regularly goes too far.
Yes some IP is obstructive and rentseeking but some is justified as an incentive for the development of new ideas and creative work.
Without IP some projects would not be viable unless funded by taxes.
It is a question of balance- something Libertarian ideology, as an extremist ideology, lacks.
reply
I think somebody has thought about that and that's why ip rights and patents expire and are not perpetual. Whether this is the perfect system I don't know.
reply
Good summary
reply
What would be his response to the typical refrain that without IP laws, you'd discourage innovation and artistic expression? Voluntary contracts only work if other people can't steal or copy your work.
In any case, I'm not convinced that the benefit of eliminating IP laws wouldn't outweigh the potential costs on disincentivizing innovation.
It just seems to me a lot of the best scientists and artists are intrinsically motivated anyway. And that a lot of slop is invented to take advantage of IP laws.
reply
What would be his response to the typical refrain that without IP laws, you'd discourage innovation and artistic expression?
The empirical evidence doesn't support such an assertion and the burden of proof should be on them to prove it does what they claim, before infringing on everyone else's property rights.
Check out Against Intellectual Monopoly for that argument. Stephen's Against Intellectual Property also covers the empirical case, but adds more to the philosophical case, which he was more interested in.
If it's a topic that interests you, you can find any of the hundreds of interviews, debates, and pods that Stephen's done on the topic, pretty easily.
I'd also suggest you think about whether the disincentivization case even makes sense from an auction theory standpoint. I've never worked it through myself, but just casually thinking about it, it's not clear that the current system of all-pay auctions is better in terms of expected payoffs. All-pay auctions reduce the amount contestants are willing to invest in the first place and yet still manage to often generate social losses. We might actually be getting much less far in intellectual production than we otherwise would and at greater cost.
reply
Interesting. I'm inclined to believe you. Sadly, I don't have time for another rabbit hole right now haha, but i'll bookmark this comment for future reference.
reply
This one is quite the rabbit hole. I was pretty obsessed with the topic about a decade ago.
reply
What empirical evidence doesn't support the common sense logic that creators receiving income from the use of their ideas are rewarded and incentivised by IP?
Just saying the empirical evidence does not support something is not empirical evidence- it is pure BS.
Where is the empirical evidence that IP laws disincentivize creative work?
SILENCE!
reply
Innovation thrives when it can build freely upon what's already there.
Look at FOSS.
reply