“Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property,” Adam Smith Forum, Moscow — Stephan Kinsella

“Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property,” Adam Smith Forum, Moscow — Stephan Kinsella


[Content_Types].xml /e’F ZAq% Oj>8 Tt5X _rels/.rels
IHFm AT\Xk 3#pZ word/_rels/document.xml.rels>hgKV rfOU ,/’1 q`iB vN+z R/8Zu word/document.xml
7]/-74 ziO}/ Y=x\ p#|D /^Yss M!o-_ w}E=”QpM {1!? 0C#\X FG+A Uik9 .,sfxs>Xz5D D:X` g%n,
imM=X|%. ;52. .%V;y )gL?X0} -RLtJm $u{f-=vWn1{ !}Tf R$G8 }P&w T!Tb k^$|ssc”[ iYUl ‘PAl
\KIX 7)F^ eK.C +XYS[ !*D’F8 zgbI “[9q as(yt !+T] { {YoL ]qg*=Y U 8{ e L.Z|I gsE!? “oij
i$p:k\ v[WC #!o-| +s*e9 9k]Hc [email protected] {.I$ Uovn +”?du jF]x e_b%o. 1a#T/ c;r_:? C36O !8C? jE’z
-vUd r’i~I [email protected]) *HqD 1q?v6 +JW| wb5F`nI 4gyY /z’E Tl_,, lHXq |xVl Y,sN
p6Z-xU tUdp 1KDS R&”&pW5! (:Q: vsWu==n>wA’; 5pJeb Z;u rN77 1ZBJVq Q’}$ I8sy>f4g0Q# p$(” aTJj u$>j x*q4N R3%L yJ)$ YuDU
“RJ( &Vh? QUFC xM~` [email protected] 9)!?s zoxu qGeV 6Wa? 6t3mm+ 3YO?” f}Tk 97~\ dy0+rS )E59 ;@J” vQ2X’
yEOII &-VqE “#FzhA %8V* :b]+) m480 H>dw ;e|3mB Cbei(2 |Z0% ?2.` c].nUA 6>rH W|8g ndL^j 9eAd
h2.K 1\NO] *|\R T+:X X#yc.g C{JJh $ZBE s~ X~ dShJ F|607x7HQ z9A$ 6$4e iJ;_ t1Sp, 2f\-
.L[G H|\l “kBt e?:c AQ|~ g()Ws JL9=,s?!6zqs G[*k HUC;D R=HfN*V_R hR>Z M]Dv_ 7`c{ AU{R|
*h26 C}&u-D \[2nO J7aY ivoFW 6Dl9$t2 oe*>3B.6 P+m): 3whl2 U=0BH ,`)\ BST( /;|P MdkA [email protected] RvE9 8zoZ D~\DK Y7k% RJBY KcaG )8M~ p^} ^B+2 tJ;E +,t3 *\{Y hTRb2 “PbO $(T]) 5-Xo (@hJ word/footnotes.xml WQE[f,W2G ZhxCWE r+]mN c/y>7 h[Q5 .g’% e{d4 ?Ibc xR?O=) ‘[^~ mD`9 ~8b_ tkuz KSha N_Gy
_|M. huGQ HdR[ [k=z ‘7%4e hnk^ w=q2 f~aH KSYKK fsx^ [#Hh :sN1 ky | Y+ME5
au5eEP*- 3EwC [email protected]@OE=[D )ovj [email protected]: kd33 E!umq UQ0Z*h }e[“| eC#tD {Sfa %j;M!l. f9Ag )alQD MeVP zWxXK l+IsQD=(K&=al- 4vfa 0%M0 word/settings.xml
.X)k y%r%[ WYkVn p4&d4 w4.q I3t=,C;1 V;I} EhF7n [email protected] wTGM>xV’- Y\9w{ word/stylesWithEffects.xml
4M#{ Dzb _\hL
93>wps gn8I |WvQ ossw6 tX|; &skh4 Cg|Wm JviN docProps/app.xml J$An }`v4 UQ_x*O q6fyiQ 1[p6
X\s6` Dq=_ GPh} Nv|R [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK word/_rels/document.xml.relsPK
R/8Zu word/document.xmlPK word/header1.xmlPK word/_rels/footer1.xml.relsPK word/footer1.xmlPK
word/footnotes.xmlPK word/endnotes.xmlPK word/media/image1.jpegPK word/theme/theme1.xmlPK
word/settings.xmlPK word/stylesWithEffects.xmlPK word/webSettings.xmlPK word/fontTable.xmlPK
docProps/core.xmlPK word/styles.xmlPK docProps/app.xmlPK

54 thoughts on ““Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property,” Adam Smith Forum, Moscow — Stephan Kinsella

  1. that's just semantics hijacked by what he would call left-libertarians which are basically socialists without a compulsive tax collector. What he is referring to is commonly called Voluntarism or "anarcho-capitalism" in order to avoid the confusion with those idiots.

  2. Even if copyright and IP didn't exist, we would still have people paying for intellectual works. It would just work differently than it does now. Nothing wrong with that.

  3. I love how he starts the video by stating his general world views. It makes it much easier to understand any bias he might have. I wish more speakers and authors would disclose more about their worldviews rather than try to pass off their ideas as being somehow unbiased or objective.

  4. Anarchy is literaly translated as "an"-meaning against and "archy"-meaning rulers or ruler-ship from the Greek word Archon who was the leader of a war band going off to fight.

    It doesn't say anything about rules or even laws, just against rulers.

    Anarcho-capitalists specifically believe strongly and exclusively in property rights and free exchange, government forces taxes on people which is theft.(defined as taking physical property from an innocent person without a prior agreement)

  5. Nah uh! IP only lasts for as long as Disney pushes congress to extend it! Arybhatta was after Mikey Mouse, so tough shit Indians!

    Kidding, I'm anti-IP.

  6. He spends the first few minutes re-emphasizing his belief in the title point, and self promoting. Explaining who should care. Insisting that he does, in fact, believe himself. That is the babbling. Making him the fool.

  7. Fair enough. I still think you could have been more concise in the beginning. That being said, when I re-watched your video, I did not find the intro nearly as painstaking as I had remembered it. I withdraw the harshness of my initial criticism and will review my knee-jerk reactions more thoroughly in the future.

  8. I read your monograph "Against Intellectual Property" a few years ago and it completely changed my view on IP. One of the big unanswered questions about a free society in mind was always "how would IP rights be enforced without state intervention?". You answered that question for me by making it clear that we don't need IP in the first place. That's a great intellectual achievement!

  9. I think the fundamental error in your analysis is the idea that "physical resources are unlike knowledge, because the former is scarce and the latter is not." Unfortunately, this is only true after discovery. Prior to the act of inspiration, innovation or discovery, knowledge is NONEXISTENT, i.e., "infinitely scarce" and overcoming this scarcity in any kind of systematic way requires the expenditure of a finite resource: a fraction of the discoverer's lifespan.

  10. Looked at in this sense, IP rights serve as a lien, by the intellectual laborer, upon the scarce physical resources owned by others, who that intellectual laborer has enriched through his effort.

  11. Property Law –> Because in a material universe, one use of physical property excludes another.

    IP Law –> Because in a time-directional universe, one use of a lifespan excludes another.

  12. To the extent you argue that IP Law needs to be reformed, I am in total agreement. But I get off the train when you start questioning whether it is "genuine" property.

  13. I saw your radio-interview and I was impressed by your intellectual honesty and will to truth and transparency. Being well educated, no doubt, you see when the context and background has to be explained. And you're always short and to the point. As an orator this gives you a whole lot of ethos, an ethos you deserve because you believe in what you are saying and know what you're talking about. My honest opinion: keep up the good work, a good work indeed!

  14. I realized one more thing: I've never heard you say the word "copywrong". ONE man has the copyright, the rest of the world has "copywrong". They are all robbed of their intuitive right to use their own property as they seem fit. Especially in our time of copies (forwarding mails, downloading torrents, uploading pictures), we want our right to make copies and we are all the more frustrated by "copywrongs" and monopolistic thinking. The work as copyrighted sounds good, but really it's copywronged.

  15. David Friedman has some ideas about how IP could be partially enforced without state intervention. (The ideas aren't unique to him, but he's the only one I've heard explicitly discussing it.)

    The gist of it is that there would be various companies providing justice services. Some would protect IP; some wouldn't. If two people had an IP dispute and they were both customers of agencies that enforced IP, then IP would be enforced. But customers of other agencies could opt out of IP enforcement.

  16. the cooperative is a triump over private states. private property rights still need to be enforced, and that only leads to a regression in individual liberty.

  17. scarcity is artificial, and hardly a justifiable concept in which to build an economic theory such as praxeology.

  18. Your invocation of John Locke in your discussion of the tabula rasa tells me where you get your notions of private property. Locke, Hobbes, Darwin, and the whole enlightenment tradition has been a scourge on humanity. You are a conservative, not an anarchist.

  19. How can you say that the people on the left who oppose IP are wrong to oppose property rights? From a left perspective, your argument against IP can easily be extended to all property rights. You can't defend property rights, and neither can Locke.

  20. Property rights need a state in order to be enforced. The whole notion of an-cap is contradictory. Why not just go all the way and be an-com?

  21. The whole idea of an Adam Smith forum in a place like Moscow is bit absurdist to me, as is the idea of promoting Von Mises to Russians. My favorite Metro line in the city is Kropotkinskaya. In other words, what I'm trying to say is Russia has a rich intellectual tradition, and the people understand how to define anarchism better than any American ever will.

  22. Because, if I understood their premises correctly, property preexists the state. I don't know about the need of a state to keep one's property, there are alternatives to protect it (private security firms, insurance, etc.) And communal property doesn't work as soon as someone sees the fruits of their labor being reaped by free riders everywhere.

  23. Furthermore, if you don't believe in property rights, you can't believe in anarchy either, as you suppose people would give up their property without coercion.
    And when you start forcing people, you end up not being an anarchist ūüôā

  24. It is not my job to tell people how to sell ideas without violating property rights (i.e. w/o using coercive IP laws), but I can easily think of one way off the top of my head: an artist creates an album and tells his/her fans that it will be released upon recieving $X in donations. Simple as that! And that is one of many peaceful business models one can adopt.

  25. Delusional how? I was merely trying to clarify a point someone else made, and also to add that wherever communal property was implemented, as it usually is, through the use of force – you can expect everything that comes out of it to be either of substandard quality or just simply wasteful because the state has to plan everything that needs to be produced and that is impossible for any single entity. Try to be constructive, saying I am delusional does not bring reality to the table, does it?

  26. Stephan, I thought I was an objectivist until I took issue with their IP position.  I thought Objectivists were supposed to think for themselves Рor at least that is what they espouse and were taught by Rand, who held her own reasoning mind to be sovereign and fallible.  I had to excommunicate the whole lot of them..lol.  Rand likely would have changed her tune in the face of the modern IP landscape, if she was still around.

    From what I have seen, tech companies, especially smart phone market leaders, seem to understand that information and their market evolves so fast these days that it is in their own self interest to share / trade / 'steal' technology in order to stay competitive.  There are no shortages of ideas / possible improvements, and the window of market opportunity comes and goes so fast.  If they don't adopt each others technology, they simply get left behind with their obsolete technology that nobody wants.

    You are doing an amazing job!  Keep it up!  Is there a video out there of you debating Adam Mossoff and educating him on the matter?

  27. Get this…I was introduced to Objectivism by watching a pirated copy of Atlas Shrugged 2, a few years ago….LMAO….idiots.¬† I have since bought many of her original works and I don't mind paying for them.¬† Their latest film was not even released in Canada, so I will likely first see it pirated on-line, even though I was certainly willing to pay up to $20 to have a good copy in my possession as soon as It was released in U.S. theaters last month…And they call themselves capitalists…what a joke.

  28. How can you be against IP but also against surveillance at the same time? When I copy non-scare electrons from your phone and computer, why is that wrong? When I copy non-scare electrons from Sony Pictures, why is that good? Isn't IP a requirement of information privacy?

  29. Physically tangible things require ownership because they can only be used by one person at a time. Ideas do not require ownership because they can be used simultaneously by any number of people without interference. IP is about protecting markets, not ideas. In fact IP is a tool for stealing ideas, thereby necessitating IP for protection of physical property rights. What artists and inventors deserve is recognition for their respective contributions, not monopoly rights. IP law in the US has turned the free market into a captive market. Private ownership over the means of production is just as bad as state control. The only way back to a free market is to maximize competition and the only way to maximize competition is to abolish monopoly rights (repeal article 1, section 8, clause 8) and guarantee every citizen the fundamental right to profit from selling whatever  we may produce with our physically tangible property, limited only by consumer and environmental protection regulations.

  30. can you share our FB page
    we want to make fund which would award persons/groups which break down Sonny Bono act, and other copyright laws

    (we already collect 10k but we do expect to collect a lot more)

    https://www.facebook.com/BookLiberationFront?ref=hl

  31. Very interesting presentation. Kinsella is a very clever man. It's just a pity that he behaves like a spoilt five year old whenever anyone challenges his views as can be seen in his debate with Jan Helfeld and in some of his responses to people on this page.

  32. What about trade secrets and military secrets. Essentially espionage is done as an attack to outmaneuver a competitor. In the military case it could mean the difference between life or death. Like for example the atom bomb. Similarly it could mean life or death for a company if its secrets get copied ( though not always the case). Dont people have a right to protect themselves against such situations.

  33. This is hard to get my head around. I thought (C) was to prevent from stealing; me printing your book and putting my name on it and making money with it by selling it as mine.

  34. I agree with your idea of IP and I believe it is used to control and restrain. My question strays from IP towards something more fundamental; do you believe property rights are the same as universal human rights (since a human right cannot be sold or bought, given or taken) or are property rights something else? Is it incorrect to label it a "right"?

  35. Stephan, it's the examples you gave in this video that finally crystalized it for me. How two people can use the same ideas and it's not invalidating anyone's property rights (the cake baking and the beyonce example were excellent). Perhaps more examples like that would help people understand this better in your future speeches and debates. This is a fairly complex topic to a layman.

    Thanks for laying it all out in a clear and concise manner.

  36. A well needed video for the world to see. I'm very grateful for your effort towards a better existence on our planet. Thank you.

  37. intellectual property is genuine property because intellectual property is genius. genius means, source of knowledge or producer of knowledge. when it's knowledge that nobody else has and has been produced by the source, it is genuine intellectual property. genius and genuine are relative words.

  38. Now you know why youtube downloader does not work…it would work in any environment where copyright has been forbidden.

  39. Buddy, you're attacking a straw man. The argument that IP helps society is a statist argument. You refute it thoroughly congrats. You say how the history of IP is anticapitalist at times. Okay, sure. You win. The problem is that if IP is real property is doesn't matter who it hurts or if it helps more people than it hurts. As you yourself point out, we SHOULD be protected from competition when we use our own property, like our own cars. Rothbard holds that IP is real property, so it doesn't matter if you can help society by stealing. Of course you sometimes can. It is still wrong.

  40. I like your channel and become fan of your channel !huston is very good place! Thank u for uploading good videos from Korea julie!!!

  41. I like how it was at the start with 7+7=14 term, and the explanation made sense, that the master had advantage over the students. But now, it doesn't make any sense, especially the copyright's length. I mean lifetime+70… … y… And it makes any deviate or imitative work completely useless. Like for a musician, it's just pointless making a cover of another persons song, because you don't own the cover, and you only can make cover of songs that are really old… Doesn't help that much (saying this as a musician).

    I'm not completely sold on the argument of abolishing it, but limiting it makes a lot of sense. Another problem that I discovered with IP in contrast to regular property, is that it's hard, very hard to even define. A regular property is way more easily definable as "an object in the 3D space". Like a pencil, it's a solid object in the 3D space, a real estate is a certain area, space in the 3D space. But the borders of an intellectual property are way more obscure.for example, if I make a song, where goes the line between my song and the rest of music? It's clearly hard to define. Although you might be able to do so, it's tough. The line must go so that the other song isn't similar enough to my song, so it's an own unique song. Which yet again is hard to define, although probably possible. And that is another problem with IP, the vagueness.

  42. 16:32 of course you can do something about it! You can life by example and put an open license on it, depending on the level of what you believe, like creative commons or MIT license, GNU general public license etc. While technically you have a copyright, you give everyone all needed freedoms that make the copyright effectively disappear. Then people will see how you are doing well without anti competitive copyright and will learn about it and you become an example that we don't need it! Nice to see that this video is under a open license^^

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *