Actually, the book was very good, and the anti-IP argument validated what I had already reasoned out as my own viewpoint on the subject. Maybe I’ll send Stephan a fruitcake.

http://delicious.com/Klausgraf/monograph_open_access

“And since Kinsella is a patent attorney with seemingly a lot of time in his hands, and since he doesnt know economics he keeps filling the blog with IP posts.”

Kitbook, we all have “time on our hands. This is an irrelevant, eristic comment. You have enough time on you hands to stalk me thru cyberspace, for example. And to use a cowardly nym. You aren’t Silas-John Sharp-Richard Harding-Person are you?

“Yes there are lots of argument in the opinion boxes but they are all the same.”

The libertarian argument, yes, is rather consistent and simple. We oppose aggression, we support property rights, we oppose the state. Anyone favoring IP has to take the opposite position on all of these.

You try to enlighten and educate people about economics. There comes a great opportunity and you debate about IP. For example why do you think Ron Paul caught on this year. He has been saying these things for years. He caught on because the time proves him right.

The time also proves Aurstrian economics right but not enough is being done. Last time there was a staflation Hakek got a Nobel. This time it is worst and only Ron Paul is trying to make dent.

And since Kinsella is a patent attorney with seemingly a lot of time in his hands, and since he doesnt know economics he keeps filling the blog with IP posts.

Yes there are lots of argument in the opinion boxes but they are all the same.

Now Marcello wants to know how contracts are enforced in the absence of state.

Marcello, have you ever rented a car? Think of buying a book with a copyright contract as renting a car. You rent a car on certain conditions. You buy, rather rent, a copyright book movie or sofware on certain conditions.

It is as simple as that.

I agree that there are more important issues for libertarians to address in our advocacy and actions dealing with the rest of the (non-libertarian) world.

However, within libertarian/austrian circles, the IP debate is one we need to have in order to attain internal consistency in our theory and philosophy. We have no notable internal disputes on the fraud of fractional reserve banking for example, but we do face a challenge in coming to a consensus on what sensibly constitutes ‘property’. It is an issue “at the forefront”, so to speak, of the evolution of libertarian thought and the arrival of the internet, along with the inevitable attempts to control it, are both current and highly significant.

The enforcement of the copyright regime necessarily creates one of the most significant wedges in the door of our personal privacy today. The violations thereof have vast implications for the future of freedom and liberty in the world.

There is no need for a state to enforce copyrights, or any contact for that matter.

Newson: “haven’t read the book yet, but given the heat ip generates, wouldn’t it behove you to omit the copyright nonetheless? no carping intended.”

First, it was not my decision. It was Mises Inst. Second, again, it’s just restating a FACT, a fact that exists whether you omit it or not. Third, it’s the common way of putting the publication date on publications so people know how to cite them accurately.

There is this big financial crises going on in the world, maybe the biggest since the great depression. People are clueless to what is going on and Austrians can’t even decide on the definition of money and if there is a deflation or inflation of US dollars right now.

Eventhough the world is going through this phase Mises blog has more IP spam from Kinsella than anything else.

It is really sad for the Mises institute that during this phase in world economy, not a book on monetary theory or business cycle but a pamphlet that supports socialization of property is no 2 in the book sales.

You think people would be selling a copy of a bound book… for less than $6? Let ‘em try. Do you realize you have to sell 500 copies (say) to just break even?

jl: “So I see from the free PDF that the manuscript is “Copyright 2008″. Per Neal W., if someone were to print it off and sell it, would Mises.org sue him? Can someone have a go at printing and selling the book? I’m not sure that someone would or could sell it cheaper than Mises.org, but is it allowed?”

First off, what you “see” as the copyright statement is irrelevant: you note it as if this statement is legally significant. The fact is the federal law automatically gives you copyright protection in certain works, whether you print a notice as to this fact or not (much like a black person has a right to sue for discrimination, even if he does not ask for this right). Second, if Mises makes a free, online PDF copy available, and sells print coipes at a loss for $6 (at least for hundreds of initial copies), do you really think they are doing this for anything other than spreading truth, ideas, liberty?

They should be applauded for their truly heroic work spreading ideas of liberty–not carped at from the sidelines.

And see Ideas Are Easy… Execution Is Difficult.

Person: “Let me guess — now you’re going to flaunt some evidence of how there exist intellectual works that were produced without intent to assert IP.”

You IP advocates have become as slippery as your socialist progenitors. Every time we explode one of your alleged arguments for state intervention, you retreat to the position that this is not essential to your case. Many IP advocates say that one reason for IP is that without it, people would not produce books, if they could just be knocked off. The truth is–it’s not so easy to execute an idea. Those who do, might profit from it.

See Ideas Are Easy… Execution Is Difficult.

WOW, another conclusive proof of something that no one ever disputed!

Let me guess — now you’re going to flaunt some evidence of how there exist intellectual works that were produced without intent to assert IP.

And if there were no IP, there would already be a place that sells stuff like this cheaper than you are, meaning you’ve proven nothing.

Is there anything precluding someone else from selling copies of Kinsella’s writings? I have to believe that, on principle, Jeffrey Tucker et al. would not object to someone else selling copies of Kinsella’s writings, on legal grounds at least.

Perhaps Kinsella’s book being the #2 bestseller in the Mises store does not prove anything in a rigorous sense, but it most certainly demonstrates the fact that people are willing to pay for a hardcopy replica of information they can obtain for free. If others are able to undercut Mises.org on price, that is a wonderful boon for consumers who can obtain a hardcopy of the book and use their saved, hard-earned money to improve their standard of living by consuming or investing that money elsewhere.