Would a libertarian society recognize patents as legitimate? What about copyright? In Against Intellectual Property, Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney of many years’ experience, offers his response to these questions. Kinsella is altogether opposed to intellectual property, and he explains his position in this brief but wide-ranging book.
This is an excellent and concise book on the problems of IP. The printing is also fine.
Great book - it called me to question what is considered one of the most fundamental tenants of our socio-political system. I was very skeptical before listening to the book. After, I'm just a changed person.
Neo-Marxism? I find it hard to believe you actually read the book.
I have been slogging through this work online and have to say that this is a work that any social constructivist with Marxian foundations would love. His argument is indistinguishable from the ones made by Kautsky and the socialists going back 100 years. These ideas were constantly refuted by all classical liberal lovers of liberty; it is sad and shocking that the LVMI have adopted them.
I do not understand how the Austrians who understand property rights so well have a problem understanding that intellectual property is just as valid as tangible property and that confiscation of ones intellectual property is just as much a theft as confiscation of ones tangible property.
In this I think Galambo’s had it right where property rights are concerned and the Neo- Austrians have it dead wrong. In this one issue I part ways with the ASE.
Very well written and presented. This is a belief that I came to on my own, so it is nice to see an intellectual person presenting the same POV (given, in a much moe comprehensive and intelligent way).
To those who say, "Why shouldn't I claim this as my own work, then?":
There is a difference between using and benefitting from the work of another man without license and claiming authorship of another man's work. The first is ethical and acceptable IMO. The second is fraud. This POV doesn't put forth the idea than anyone should be able to claim anything as his own creation, rather it suggests that I should be able to take what Kinsella has written and reproduce and redistribute it as I see fit without gaining license from the author to do so.
Apply the same principle to fine art. I may paint a very good copy of Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night, but to claim it as the original would be fraud, as it clearly is not the original, but a copy.
Yes there is dead weight loss from a product not reaching everyone it could but the question is, and I don't know the answer, is this school of economic thought for optimization of economic systems or for individual freedoms. I still think it is a freedom to be allowed to create something that is exclude-able. It the argument that statutory law should keep all non-competitive goods from being exclude-able. I thought law was good when it is just contract law. I can easily write up a contract that would exclude a customer from spreading my creation after receiving my deliverable even without patent law. Is that contract a burden for society. Two adults were in agreement to the contract and there is nothing wrong with it. If a contract between two people is considered a burden for society then your thinking doesn't seem very Austrian.
Sorry. I've been studying austian for about a year and it's taught me to probe.
If you would like to submit a video review of your own please contact the Mises Store.
Shopping Cart Software by AbleCommerce