> It makes absolutely no sense to make an argument against IP
> based on anarcho-capitalism.

why?

> Under anarcho-capitalism, the
> protection or not of a right is based on its economic value.

I’m not sure we agree on the definition of “anarcho-capitalist,” but
I’ll assume we do until you prove me wrong.

> Consider the enormous capital industries built around producing
> media and software. Consider that they would all be ruined if
> their property rights were eliminated. Consider that they have a
> full incentive to completely cooperate with each other in the
> protection of these rights.

Yes, they may very well want to create contracts duplicating these
“rights.” However, nobody’s forcing consumers to take their media and
software contracts, so if the enormous industries you describe don’t
adjust to the new legal climate, they obviously won’t stay enormous
for long.

> Now consider what kind of people would benefit from the
> abolition of IP: open-source communists like Richard Stallman.

I think he prefers to be called a “free software” communist.

> Weigh the value earned by property protection agencies in return
> for protecting the IP of the enormous media industry,

Well, again, consumers wouldn’t buy into your vision in sufficient
quantities to feed those industries with the same influx of capital
(what makes them enormous) that feeds them in our current (unfair)
legal framework. I don’t see your argument.

> against
> the value earned from protecting Richard Stallman’s copyright
> violations.

Okay, I’ll bite: Please find me an example of Richard Stallman’s
copyright violations. If you’re talking about copyleft, it’s no copyright
violation, but simply a license that a copyright holder can use for his
copyrighted works. If you’re talking about the body of work licensed
under his copyleft, I’d like to reexamine a slightly paraphrased version
of your quote:

> Weigh the value earned by media conglomerates against the value
> earned from protecting the integrity of the free software movement,
> which powers a huge percentage of the world’s economy, makes sure that
> Internet Explorer can’t afford to stagnate for too long, is responsible
> for the only truly open standard for office-type documents, and provides
> companies and governments protection against the NSA keys discovered a
> decade ago in Windows.

Given _this_ choice, it’s easy to quantify the latter as the greater
contribution to mankind, and without state protection of copyright,
as the greater monetary value.

> Equation simple: anarcho-capitalist protection agencies will
> crush all attempts to violate copyright.

It’s hard to “crush” attempts to ignore your copyright contract by those
who haven’t signed it in an anarcho-capitalist society, so your assertion
seems to have no basis.

> There is simply no money in violating it.

On the contrary, Richard Stallman and his free software commies seem
to have kicked off a huge industry in this country. Just look at
the number of people employed in some capacity or another with free
software: everywhere from Pixar to IBM, Sun Microsystems to Six Apart.
(Even Microsoft now produces software under what Mr. Stallman himself
considers two separate free software licenses.) To be perfectly honest,
I find it quite laughable that even in the unnatural legal framework that
we currently have (which, as you noted, created the enormous goliaths
like Microsoft, who themselves got their start ripping free software,
mind you), Richard Stallman and his free software commies seem to be
stealing market share from Microsoft everywhere. Try to imagine how much
better they’d do if they didn’t have to waste resources funding the police
force that prevents Microsoft from having to compete in a free market.

Now consider what kind of people would benefit from the abolition of IP: open-source communists like Richard Stallman.

Weigh the value earned by property protection agencies in return for protecting the IP of the enormous media industry, against the value earned from protecting Richard Stallman’s copyright violations.

Equation simple: anarcho-capitalist protection agencies will crush all attempts to violate copyright. There is simply no money in violating it.

This topic has been discussed in the Facebook Mises site.

In short:

Q: Would it be possible to fund expensive medical research without IP? How?
A: Yes, in several ways. For instance, several drug manufacturers could join their efforts to fund the same research lab, and compete in other aspects, like details of drug manufacturing and delivery techniques; or patient associations could “hire” research labs to develop the drugs.

Q: Why we don’t see all these alternative business models happen right now? Why is there no “open source” Viagra?

A: Because it wouldn’t make sense for a research lab to forgo the advantage of patent monopoly if available. The same happens with copyright, where free/open-source works are FAR scarcer than they would be without IP legislation.

Of course, it should be OK for a private fenced community to have its own “IP legislation” which everyone agrees to when they join the community. My prediction is that no-one would like to live there, and after some time, virtually all private communities would be IP-free. At first, some people may decide to have such “legislation” in their communities, and some research labs may move there to acquire a “legal” monopoly on their inventions. But they would soon realize that people in IP-free communities enjoy the same creations (either copied or reinvented with inspiration from the the originals) at much lower prices, and even some third-party refinements which would be impossibly problematic with IP. So, customers would flock to IP-free zones, and even the most pro-IP research labs would soon follow.

I consider myself a left-libertarian and personally advocate neither communes or kubbutzim, and would easily qualify as an “anarcho-capitalist” were it not for the fact that I don’t advocate it specifically as a system and I don’t think the outcome of a free market would produce “anarcho-capitalism” as a universal system. My opposition to IP is along the lines of that of Benjamin Tucker’s, who made a case against it that was both “leftist” and “libertarian”. So I tend to reject the terminology used in the title and in the article.

P.S. Selfrule For All!

Why the hell do people want to protect copyrights? Take a look at today. The main people who benefit from these copyrights are disgruntled leftists who can’t get a job in the real world. They don’t give a crap about Austrian economics or your free markets.

A very simple and elegant argument–it could further be argued that libertarians don’t find the state an effective means of doing other things, why should it be considered effective at IP protection?

Better we should let the market work its magic and find the appropriate means and level of IP protection, if such is indeed needed.”

The first sentence that belongs to Kinsella is a blatant lie, not an argument.

Copyrights are contracts and saying contracts can not be made or enforced without legislation and thus a state is a lie.

IP Socialists often resort to these fallacies. They always bundle patents, which are state creations and no libertarian defends them, and copyrights and trademarks and name it IP. And when they attack “IP” they always attack patents. It is a pathetic straw man argument.

That can be said of all property and contracts.

and I AM NOT JJ

codeine was discovered by robiquet 1834. i don’t think he claimed ip protection.

i can’t imagine medicine going backwards for the absence of ip legislation, though sure the pharmaceutical industry would be unrecognizable in a laissez-faire environment.

While being interviewed by Edward R. Murrow on See It Now in 1955, Salk was asked: “Who owns the patent on this vaccine?” Surprised by the question’s assumption of the requirement of a profit motive for his creation, he responded: “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” [1]

I have filed for a patent before, but a person got their patent application in before me by only a few weeks so you know the story I had to stop the continuance of my patent application process,
but I did not like it when the government gave sellers monopoly rights to all the land space in the U.S.A. including the place I live to another person!

That would be like the government(the one by bad force) giving a license to WalMart allowing them to be the only retail store in the U.S.A.

Hahaha JJ