Because he is a utilitarian. And a fan of democracy.

Just because a state has not been overthrown does not make it legitimate or moral.
“The debate is about where to draw the line, and limitation of force and fraud is my own personal line.” That is all well and good, but in the presence of a state you have no meaningful way of sticking to that line if the state chooses to use your tax money to enforce its own will on others. IP is perhaps a good example – some people see the invasion of privacy and property by the state inherent in the process as immoral and unjustifiable, yet they have no say on whether the taxes extracted from them are used to pay for such misdeeds. I think before we can discuss “where to draw the line”, we need a clear picture of what we can realistically do if that line is crossed. In the presence of a state, the answer is “appeal to the state for mercy from the ravages of the state, and appease the state as far as possible”.

To me the issue is always about what state authority the people will accept. History is filled with examples of governments that were overthrown, or people who simply fled and went to another land. Any authoritarian government will breed its own opposition, but indeed most of them are “accepted” by the vast majority of the people until their power becomes more than the people can bear. In ancient times, the majority of the people accepted the idea of monarchies. In the 20th Century, most Germans and Italians and Russians accepted the idea that government should have the power it had.

Only rarely did a clear thinker such as Bastiat come along and say that the state cannot solve the problems because the state is the problem. Most people in the world today accept the idea that government has some role to play. The debate is about where to draw the line, and limitation of force and fraud is my own personal line.

Wildberry, if you agree that this “Everybody gives and everybody gets” system is not for you, then why do you support IP? The main difference between collectivism and freedom is that in a free society, people only take on the costs they voluntarily choose to accept. You must see that being part of this “everybody” that must “give up something”, means that a cost is being imposed on me, whether I accept this cost or not?

If I am mistaken, please explain, and excuse my confusion.

Why do we sancitfy property in the first place? I have always felt that it is, ideally, the reward that one acquires for one’s labor or one’s economically productive ideas. Property can also be acquired in ways that are not very nice or very honorable. We respect anyone who has acquired property through hard work or creativity or raw talent. We are less respectful, but still respectful, of people who have acquired property through inheritance or even trickery.

We should all agree fundamentally that you own your own person, and ought to be able to control and own the fruits of your physical and mental labor, at least without the threat of having some legally constituted political or authoritarian gang come in and take it from you. Legitimate governments are supposed to help you keep your property, not take it from you.

If intellectual property is also a product of your physical and mental labor, how is the government’s protection of it any different from their helping to protect your home against invasion by burglars or foreign governments?

The proper extent of government’s power has always been the issue. The degree of acceptance of governmental authority by the people has always been the limiting factor on government power. I personally do not think it is wrong to accept governmental authority if it is limited to the arena of force and fraud, both of which are offensive to reason. IP is at best only on the very edges of the arena of force and fraud, but if it is viewed as the product of ones’ physical and/or mental labor, it deserves to be protected against force and fraud even though the force and fraud is of a softer kind.

Bob Murphy has dealt with these (and other) concerns about the practicality of freedom. For example, http://mises.org/daily/1874

You seem to be wary of self-organising systems, unnecessarily. We would not need, for example, for everyone to have ‘agreed on a single “code of ethics” ‘ for the same reason that right now, we do not all need to agree on a single price for shoes – the market uses incentives to respond to the needs of consumers.

This is the great feature of the free market – wherever there is a problem, such as your example of two people using different ideas of contract, entrepreneurs are motivated to find an optimal solution. I, for one, would not do business with a person whose idea of contract law was incompatible with mine, and so people subscribing to strange legal practices would lose out on my business. So private contract dispute resolution companies would be able to make a killing if they found a way to reconcile two different schools of contract thought, as parties on both sides would like to have access to the customer base of the other side.

In this way, yes, over time, the market will probably “settle down” so that, on average, people will tend to interpret contracts in the same way, and this a single dominant average understanding, but that does not mean that it is similar to a state (note, you should be careful not to conflate “state” and “government”, as they can be different things, although I make this mistake all the time too) body of laws. There are two important differences:
1) In a free society, adherence to this average understanding of contract would be voluntary – of course, it is almost impossible to survive in the modern world without the input of other people, and if you are known not to honour contracts, you are making your own life much much more difficult, as rational people will not trade with you.
2) The “average” understanding will be a dynamic, fast-evolving, fair system worked out on a case-by-case basis, rather than a leviathan institution growing its own self-serving, arcane, contorted rules and imposing them on the populace.

A lot of work has already gone in to showing how a free society could function in the absence of a state, and it makes for a very interesting read. For example: http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_3.pdf

I’m not laying the blame at IP. I’m only saying IP is a convoluted sense of property. It’s not clear by any means. If you read “fair use” via the copyright office, you find an incredibly vague article.

But this quote sums it up:

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.

My interpretation…you can be sued anytime someone feels like it.

If you’re going to use property rights as a distinction, then it should be clear and easily defined. Otherwise, you’re not talking property rights… you’re talking about wants.

If I buy and use educational tools to serve 700 students and no one screams copyright infringement, then how is it when I use the same tools to reach an audience of 7000 via the internet it’s now a copyright infringement. I fail to see the difference.

As far as your Nazi parade analogy…if I own the road, I am not obligated to let anybody parade on it. If I sell the road to the Nazi’s, they own it and can do what they please.

In conclusion, IP doesn’t make sense because it is not clear to those who support it or the copyright office. It is apparently undefinable.

You’re right, life is unfair… the internet evolved and IP is seen for what it really was all along… Luddite.

I think your arguments have merit.

“Now I wouldn’t call this arbitrary personally”

I think this is what arbitrary means: you make the most reasonable decision you can based on what you know, but the “rightness” or “wrongness” is not known for certain. You end up deciding on standards like “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is not mathematically precise. It requires judgment and therefore there is a subjective component.

“It’s a huge waste of time for me to learn about all of the specifics if I don’t even agree with the premise.”

I don’t think anyone should disagree with this. I don’t. Of course all we have been doing at Mises.org on this subject is debating the premise. You and I don’t seem to agree as to what is true and legitimate, fundamentally.

“I could just as easily ask the question in reverse, why do you not make the distinction to exclude intangible works?”

I think you mean “tangible” but I get your point. Ancaps have a premise for how property is legitimate. I find it limited and impractical.

“I make the distinction because I think there is no need for conflict over intangibles which are not scarce and which I think better serve humanity when they are free to be used, combined, modified, etc.”

I get that. However, you are leaving out of your statement the other side of the competing objective: rewarding innovation by preventing the innovator from merely producing for external markets. This is the reciprocal nature of IP laws. Everybody gets something by giving up something.

“collectivism fails horribly when applied to large heterogeneous groups, and commonly fails even at small scale with some groups of individuals.”

I agree. The irony is that you don’t see how taking someone’s work product and granting everyone free access to its use is simply a restatement of the ethical principles of socialism; individual labor for the greater collective good.

“you did bring up a decent point about a tree planted “on the line.” earlier where you may have a conflict that needs to be resolved.”

OK, didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. I was not intending to focus on how often it happens, but to the nature of conflicts being at the margins, where the general rule doesn’t apply very well. Simple conflicts get resolved easily and quickly; conflicts not covered by a current rule need more attention and care.

“I think the term “appropriate” doesn’t apply to intangibles.”

Yes, I know. This is probably the main point of contention.

“If someone else “misappropriates” your property they are taking it and you have no access to that property anymore.”
By adding that last bit, you assume the conclusion of your premise; that property can not arise for intangibles. Property is an economic right as well as use. If you leave me my use and take my economic rights, you still have taken something, right?

“But with IP there is no misappropriation, because the original is still there to be used.”

And that’s why you can reach this conclusion.

I didn’t go any farther than to say that self-government as a concept of social cooperation seems legitimate.

You seem to agree, as long as everyone in the particular group has consented. I am wondering what this really means in a practical sense?

For example, on any particular day, would I be free to withdraw my consent, say to pay taxes that I had previously agreed to? How long is the laundry list of things that woud have to be in this “contact”? I mean I understant human will, according to some, is inalienable. That means, even if I say I will do something, I don’t have to really to it when the time comes.

Also, I am wondering how somethign like propety rights would work if the person accross the street wasn’t part of your tribe of consent? Everyone could have their own rules, and we could spend our time trying to enforce our rights against “outsiders”? Say I wanted to buy his house? I would have to start with the ethics of property adn see if we agreed on that, adn then I could move to how title is supposed to be recorded, and eventually, I woud get to the price? And if he agreed to sell, when my moving truck shows up, he can change his mind?

Or, if we all agreed on a single “code of ethics”, then doesn’t that start to look a lot like government?

I think when you try to re-organize humanity from scratch and assume away any legitimate function for government in the normal meaning of the word, you have a rather large number of issues to deal with. This is especially ironic when many of these issues have been already “institutionalized” in our social systems.

First, I won’t reply to anything specific on your points about arbitrary except to say we probably see the “possible murder” scenario a little differently. I would agree that a lack of knowledge certainly can make decisions difficult, and ultimately sometimes you do have to decide without knowing everything. This is one reason I’m not a huge fan of the death penalties myself. At least you can reverse imprisonment (although, I think imprisonment should be a lot more rare as well) and you can mostly reverse monetary penalties, but you of course can’t reverse the effects of any punishment.

Now I wouldn’t call this arbitrary personally, because I think the decision that’s made was ultimately right or wrong. You made the decision based on the available facts, but you could be making the right decision without some facts, which turns out to be wrong when the information is revealed.

On this matter, you are saying IP is arbitrary and so we need this huge body of law that I will just need to sit down and read if I want to learn it all. But you are missing the point of why I’m asking you I think? I’m not interested in the current law because I don’t agree with the parts of it that I’m fully aware of as is. It’s a huge waste of time for me to learn about all of the specifics if I don’t even agree with the premise.

“This is very smart comment. Property is a human device and serves the purposes you mention. This applies to all rights and all property. Why do you make a distinction that excludes intangible works by definition?”
This is what makes that whole IP discussion axiomatic. I could just as easily ask the question in reverse, why do you not make the distinction to exclude intangible works?

I make the distinction because I think there is no need for conflict over intangibles which are not scarce and which I think better serve humanity when they are free to be used, combined, modified, etc.

If I honestly thought we didn’t need property in scarce things I could be against property, but I think that is impossible because of human nature. You certainly do find people who can successfully share, and you could say many families function internally like communists or something, but collectivism fails horribly when applied to large heterogeneous groups, and commonly fails even at small scale with some groups of individuals.

“This is obviously nonsense. First, there is often conflict over scarce resources. Second, what is a non-violent rejection if IP? Misappropriation is an act of aggression.”
I never said there wasn’t conflict over scarce resources. I’d agree it would be nonsense if I said that. I used the words “relatively rare” in the past to talk about the conflicts, and I do think that most people as a rule can easily recognize boundaries of property in most cases, but you did bring up a decent point about a tree planted “on the line.” earlier where you may have a conflict that needs to be resolved.

I know you want to say that people are “misappropriating” books by copying them, but I think the term “appropriate” doesn’t apply to intangibles. If you are referring to a physical object “appropriating” is to take or secure it for yourself and only you have it. If someone else “misappropriates” your property they are taking it and you have no access to that property anymore.

But with IP there is no misappropriation, because the original is still there to be used.

When you say self-government, I am strongly inclined to believe you are referring to (representative) democracy, and when you said consent earlier, I am fairly certain you intended to mean “group consent” to some degree, though you weren’t 100% clear on that matter.

I have no problems with the idea of a government as long as it is a voluntary arrangement on the part of every individual, and as long as the existence of this government is not taken to mean that these individuals now have some kind of legitimate power by which they can use force against others regardless of how good their intentions may be.

So I do think in an “ancap world” that there would be numerous voluntary societies, and they need not necessarily be bound to static geographic regions.

The fundamental issue remain whether IP is properly considered as property. For that case to be made it isn’t sufficient to say things like, “one view is that it is an extension of contract law…” and the like. What is required is the case actually be made. On a previous thread I’ve mentioned some of what that would entail. It isn’t a trivial undertaking and it is yet to be accomplished. If it isn’t, then IP is not property, then claims and laws relying upon it (the IP as property notion) are false and must be dismissed without further consideration.

–

As far as actual IP “enforcement” is concerned, it makes litle difference to the target whether a state agency or an informer initiates the process of attack. In the end the agents/employees of state are there to threaten or actually undertake the wet work.

–

The IP debate is of vital importance to libertarians because it involves determination of what property is and who has ownership. Ownership of property, what property actually is and can be, who has the right to own and why that is, are fundamental. That is why it is taken seriously.

For a very long time IP was hardly considered at all in libertarian circles. It was accepted as a given and rarely examined critically or analytically or in any great depth. That changed in recent years (see the papers of Dr Kinsella and book by Levine and Boldrin for examples). There has been the realisation that the case for IP is not as strong or moral or logical as previously assumed. There are severe shortcomings and failures evident in the theories and reduction to practice. Of course, that has annoyed those with interests to defend (under the present arrangement) or who have significant intellectual investment in the belief of IP as property.

In the end, no matter how upset or emotional the protagonists become, the burden remains for the pro-IP promoters to develop and present a real case that IP is properly considered as property. And that is but the first step of the challenge faced.

Sione

Sorry, I didn’t mean to nitpick. They were minor and relatively unimportant.

Your last parragraph is perfect. Staying open is a good thing, IMHO.

“Actually, you do not. It is your sister who has rights that have been violated. Relatives who seek retaliation for crimes against their kin are called vigilantes. That is not the way it really works, so I am wondering if you are meaning to propose some alternative to the current legal system. Are you?”
In my view the person who killed has violated the essential rule not to initiate aggression. If the killing was in self-defense then I don’t think I am justified in doing this, and obviously if I’m not 100% certain then I shouldn’t do it either and others would have a right to take action if I did act in such a manner.

Having said that, I think personal enforcement against crimes like that is generally a bad idea, and I don’t think many would take that route. I even imagine that there may be many voluntary agreements that would be made to prevent that in order to avoid the obvious possible problems that could arise.

I’m aware of the current system, but I don’t think it’s by any means perfect. It does avoid some problems but creates it’s own.

“If you sister has rights to non-aggression and she is dead, how do her rights get enforced? I mean, any right that only exists if you are alive is not much of a right. Murder would solve all disputes, right? If the person who murdered her is not brought to justice, then everyone’s rights to life are weakened, right? The question is WHO will seek justice on her behalf?”
There is probably more, but 4 possibilities come to mind.
1) Relatives/friends seeking justice on their own, or more likely through some third party agency
2) An insurance company seeking to get compensation from the murderer since they have to pay out in the event of her death.
3) People who independently work on crimes like this voluntarily, perhaps as part of some kind of “charity” organization. (I think that those who have no relatives/etc. would fall to that in many cases)
4) No one. – Yes, I admit the possibility that someone can be murdered and no one really cares to follow up on it in a limited number of cases. Even in the current system there are people murdered and while there is some limited investigation it doesn’t go on nearly as long if it’s not high profile.

“In the Ancap world, you get the justice you can pay for, and there are highly speculative theories about how rights might be enforced in the absence of any form of government.”
The theories are speculative in the same way that someone might speculate how we would have flying machines in the middle ages and precisely what would make them work. This doesn’t make it impossible by any means.

And you really are pushing this “pay for” point but I wonder how you explain the discrepancy in various groups that show up in jails/get convicted/etc. Some of that is explainable by culture or values of groups, but.. not all. The current system is by no means perfect in terms of ensuring justice for the “less fortunate.”

I happen to believe the incentives that result from voluntary agreements are better towards promoting justice than anything else. I actually work for a company that handles arbitrations, and despite the possibility of bribery/etc. it doesn’t work that way. I suppose you can imagine that regulations are the reason, but such things could be hidden if desired. The true reason this doesn’t occur is that no one would come to the company for arbitration if they perceived it to be crooked. With the state’s monopoly you have no choice in that matter.

“What happens if the murderer holds up in his own house and refuses to go along? Lynch mob? What if it’s the wrong guy? The accused only gets the defense he can afford? I don’t know about you, but this is not a scenario that makes me ask, ‘Where can I sign up? I gotta have some of this!!’”
What happens now? What if he’s the wrong guy now? The accused doesn’t necessarily need a separate defense, with private law I don’t think there would exist nearly as many loopholes/etc. I’d have no problems defending myself on a murder charge, except for this arcane system we currently have. Even then I’d be inclined to try with murder. If it was something where there are highly involved state-laws that no one can fully comprehend like anti-trust I would be stuck. Fortunately those things are constructs of government.

“Is it conceivable to you that a large group of humans would come up with the idea that everyone is better off to assign enforcement responsibilities to an impartial third party that is funded in advance and will follow a very strict set of rules (criminal procedure, due process, evidence rules, presumption of innocence, trial by jury, appeals process, etc.), and treat the defendant and victim with equal justice?”
Totally conceivable, and I’m fine with it as long as the large group of humans is all voluntarily paying for it (or they agree that some get the service for free, but again, only if those getting the service agree to the contract).

“Do you agree that there is no real profit motive for such an enterprise? ”
I don’t know what you mean by what you said after this, but no I don’t agree that there is no way for the profit motive to work here.

“That puts a tremendous burden on victims, and weakens the rights of everyone by making the risk for committing a crime much lower, don’t you agree?”
No, I don’t agree at all. I think you imagine the burden to be higher when it would not be for various reasons.

“It is a stretch, but there are some similarities between this example and that of IP. You are arguing that there is more popular support for bringing a murderer to justice than for an IP infringer. Is this the basis upon which all rights should be established? They are only valid if you can raise a private army to enforce them? Is that your point?”

They are valid insofar as the exist as part of human nature or as part of the natural order and inasmuch as they limit violent conflicts which are destructive.

I have read your response several times and I honestly do not see what corrections you are making to my statements. I am not an attorney, but I deal with real property and contracts all the time, and my son is the owner of some 200 patents.

A patent is issued by the patent office, who makes a sincere effort to ascertain what is unique about the device or process for which the patent is being applied. If they find that it is unique and, potentially, commercially important. they issue a patent. Nothing happens regarding this patent unless the patent owner feels that there has been an infringement, knowingly or not. He must then go to court and establish to the court’s satisfaction that such an infringement has occurred. He will seek relief that is very specific to the facts of the case. There is no jail, no fines, no punishment of any kind that is independent of the court’s decision. The police, if they are necessary at all, are enforcing the court’s order, not the patent or patent law.

Trademarks are registered. If there is any review at all, it is cursory in nature. Whether a trademark has been infringed is again a matter of a complaint by the owner, then adjudication by the court. Againm the police only enforce the court’s order.

Copyrights can be claimed merely by making the circled “c” on any document. They can also be registered, but they do not have to be. It is not even automatic that they have to be “published”, although a copyright claimer would be hard pressed to win a lawsuit if he does not. If a document had been stolen before its publication, for example, he would be well advised to go after a charge of theft than one of copyright infringement.

To clarify, I am not in some sort of cosmic search for truth relative to IP. I believe the IP laws have merit and should not be rejected by libertarians. As with all areas of government enforcement, however, I remain open to evaluating arguments about whether this is always and in all factual circumstances a proper role for government to have.

People trying to do the right thing get rolled over by collusion between special interests and government power all the time. I can sympathize.

All I can say it that it is sometimes difficult to put the cause of something like this in the right place. Sometimes good people with good intentions are limited by the rights of others. Sometimes people are exploited by legitimized yet unfair competition.

What we are talking about here is the very legitimacy of IP as a concept, as a device that serves society. This involves some kind of reciprocal relationship between unlimited individual liberty, and some desirable social purpose.

Without knowing any more than you have said here, there are ways to do what you want to do. Just not in the school system in which you work (for now) and not with the materials that are owned by someone else.

Allowing Nazis to have a parade is the distasteful cost of protecting others’ right to do the same. We would not suggest that in order to prevent Nazis form doing it, we should all give up our own right to this kind of expression. So be careful laying the blame for your situation solely at the feet of IP.

Life is not always fair, but I wish you success.

I said I wouldn’t quit on you, so I’m always happy to welcome your comments.

“I suspect that this is a typo”

No, it is not a typo. Land is a scarce resource. Its boundaries are represented by monuments and maps. Adjacent property owners may dispute this boundary. That is a conflict over a scarce resource, yes?

“Only because a good can have mutually exclusive states, people can object to some of these states, because they make others unavailable.”

This is all fine with me. You could restate my “conflict” in these terms, I suppose. Both parties cannot have the boundary line where they want it. Someone has to “win”, right? There has to be a method of resolving this kind of conflict peacefully, right?

“What IP proponents do is that they interpret some states of physical goods (e.g. brains, clay, paper, ink, electric charges, orientation of metal atoms on a disc plate etc.) as other, non-scarce goods.”This is not accurate. Brains are not non-scarce goods. Sometimes I wish I had a better one, but this is the only one I can have.

No one I’ve read here, and certainly I have never claimed that brains are non-scarce. That goes for clay, paper, ink, and electric charges, and all the rest. So back up and take another run.

“Because these physical goods cannot be simultaneously in two states (having the “idea” “expressed” on themselves and not having the “idea” “expressed” on themselves), there is a conflict.”

Do you see how this screws you up? “Idea” is not equal to “brain”. Ideas are intangible.

“To interpret a conflict in physical goods as a conflict of ideas”See? Where does this come from? You are inventing this concept, which by the way I cannot interpret.

“can be useful from social point of view, but from economic point of view, especially those of property rights, it’s misleading.”

I can see no way, based on what you or I have said here or elsewhere, to reach this conclusion. I can only surmise you arrive here through the magic of the following statement:

“What IP proponents do is that they interpret some states of physical goods (e.g. brains, clay, paper, ink, electric charges, orientation of metal atoms on a disc plate etc.) as other, non-scarce goods.”

Whatever do you mean by this…???

“IP sure does get libertarians worked up, doesn’t it?”

It is curious, I agree. I have decided to try to address inaccuracies being propagated here about what the law is and does, and see where that leaves us. It’s a much bigger job than I ever anticipated. If the law is going to be debated, I believe we should start with a fair reading of what it is. To that end, let me make a couple of minor corrections to your statements, but I support your conclusion.

All laws are enforced only when there is a “complaint”; in contract terms, a “breach”. In this sense, IP “infringement” is not much different than any other law. It begins with a complaint by a party who believes s/he has been injured.

Second, government is actually involved in two ways. First, the laws themselves often have legislative and constitutional origins, and second, police power is an exclusive power of government. Courts often refer back to “legislative intent” , just like they will look at “intent of the parties” in contracts.

Third, while you are essentially correct about patents, certain rights arise upon some act, and as you say, are passive rights until they are offended in some way; same for real property or any other property right. In the case of copyrights, they arise when an expression is fixed in tangible form. Registration is related to giving notice for copyrights, just like recording your title gives notice concerning your ownership of land.

“One view of IP is that it is an extension of contract law.”

I think this statement is very important. I have argued that if rights in the intangible can be established in contracts between parties, then they can be established by laws.
If fact nearly anything that can be handled by a contract can become law. What is the difference? It is simply privity. Contracts only bind the parties who agree in advance. Laws bind everyone (within jurisdiction). Some call this a “social contract” but that is a charged concept and invites debate similar to IP.

The fact is, however, that 100% of the members of a society COULD (theoretically and actually) all become parties to a contract if they choose to do so. In that case, the contract would operate exactly like a law, meaning and ALL parties had gained enforceable rights. In some cases, depending on what the subject of the contract was, these rights could be used and/or traded. Not only is this LIKE property, it IS property.

“While I am still wrestling with the philosophical underpinnings of IP, I have no doubt that an advanced free market could not function properly without contracts.”

I have nothing to “win” here if you end a supporter or opponent of IP. But your common sense approach allows you to reach a good conclusion. If society is defined by cooperation, then any device humans can invent to facilitate that cooperation has value. Contracts are one of the best and oldest examples of a human device that facilitates economic cooperation. IP is no different in this regard.

Having said that, it is still possible to have issues with specific aspects of contract law, just like any other law. Like all artifacts of civilization, its devices evolve over time. Despite localized ups and downs, in general civilization is advancing. This is not happening in spite of the human devices that have been invented to help that to happen, but because of them. Property and IP are such device.

I hope to see your contributions here more often.

I am probably the least informed on this topic and have been watching from the fence sort to speak. I was only giving a conceptual and motivational reply to Guard. Had I seen Colin’s reply (which is far more articulate and detailed) I would have never posted my comment.

Needless to say…

I cannot predict the future but I can tell you about my most recent experience in developing a business plan for an educational website. I teach for a living and for the last seven years developed a large and successful program at two schools but my sixty-hour a week job is now twenty and I believe will be shut down within a year.

I’ve worked with the underclass for most of my teaching career. I’ve come to know them intimately… their hopes, fears, dreams, and have earned their respect. In turn, I have become endeared to them.

But there is one thing in my way… it’s called the American Council on Education. You see, these academic elitists have close ties to the gov. and have an exclusive copyright and monopoly on one of the main products that serve my current and future clients. Even though I have been using their products in my classroom, serving 700 students or more per year, I have no doubt they will deny me access to use their products in an online format trying to serve thousands. (I will go through the humiliating process of asking but I believe I would have a better chance with a group of greedy capitalists.)

So, how do I know the world would be better if we just “embraced freedom” and eliminated IP…

I know for the people I serve the world would be a better place.

My effort, experience, vision, and passion multiplied by thousands like me, in other fields of endeavor, each improving the world in some small way… how can you not see it?

PS> Wildberry, I know this wasn’t the answer you were looking for but I thank you for asking.