When a scientist discovers a new principle, it’s HIS/HER “intellectual property” don’tcha know?

“Does being an advocate of Intellectual Property diqualify (curtly) one as an Austrian?”

Nope. Not even Austrians are perfect. (That’s humor).

But, no it doesn’t disqualify you. As Artisan mentioned, Rothbard advocated copyright, and he was and is one of the most prominent Austrians ever, and so I’m sure many or at lease some other prominent Austrians advocate it as well, although it just occurred to me that, aside from George Reisman (I think), I do not know which ones that would be.

I think Kinsella is the most outspoken of the Austrians against IP, and I think he takes first place for notoriety outside of the Mises blogs for doing so. You’ll see a lot of discussion on the topic on this site, on threads usually started by him.

Rothbard was in favour of copyright.

I consider copyright to be genuine too, yet I’m rather dubious about patent justification for certain reasons…

It’s a long story.

The plagiarist does not harm the original creator of a work (since he had no right to income or value), so someone who is plagiarized has as much recourse to compensation as someone whose reputation is slandered or whose stock is brought down by FUD: none.

However, someone who consumes intellectual resources on the condition that the person selling it is the actual creator of that resourse is defrauded when that is not the case.

So, in short, not recognizing copyrights is a matter of natural rights superceding monopoly rights, while plagiarism is a matter of defrauding a consumer. Copyright ‘violators’ seldom misrepresent the work as their own; in fact, they would be better able to distribute by making sure the real producer is known to the consumer (i.e., no one is interested in “Man, the Economy, and State” by Anthony Bongiovanni; but the same book will sell well under its correct author).

Can anyone help me with the moral difference between the two?

Dan

Capitalism also has a section on intellectual property.