This is the toughest post I have ever had to sit down to write. It involves top personnel at an institute that, overall, I respect very much, the
Mises Institute. In an email, I was warned by a friend:
So anyway, just letting you know that you will forever be "that freaking guy who was trying to embarrass us on copyrights when we lose money on that side of the business and put the books online for free?!"
So let me set things straight from the start, my intentions in this post are purely academic in nature, outside of very specific comments directed at Jeffrey Tucker for his extremely rude and crude comment to me, I am continuing this debate for academic purposes.
I consider the Mises Institute to be the number one, bar none, economic educational institute in the world. No other organization has ever done as much to correct falsehoods in the world of economics. I would imagine that from time to time they have had to stand up against powerful forces when they have taken stands on principle. Because of them a large body of Austrian and libertarian scholars are beginning to infiltrate academia and business. The institute overall is doing heroic things. It is in my will.
I consider the founder of MI, Lew Rockwell, to be an entrepreneurial genius when it comes to understanding how to market Austrian economic and libertarian ideas. When I observe others who have launched various projects that have not reached their original goals and contrast this with the success of everything Rockwell launches, e.g. the Mises Institute,
LewRockwell.com, his involvement with the Ron Paul campaign and his latest venture, podcasts, it is obvious to me that Austrian economics and liberty have a much, much greater worldwide audience because of the talents of Rockwell. I urge some biographer to chronicle the life of Rockwell so that future generations of Austrians and libertarians in general have an understanding of the superior marketing, management, wisdom and skills of this great man.
Murray Rothbard has left us with many remarkable writings from which we can learn many things. But as great as his writings are, he did not leave this earth before he clearly hooked up his star with Rockwell and for that we should be as truly grateful as we are for his writings.
All this said, I have a bone to pick with one theory coming out of the Mises Institute. I consider the theory absurd and dangerous, and I have, indeed, started picking at that bone. The theory seems to have been launched by Stephan Kinsella and is clearly being advanced by Mises Institute editorial vice president of
www.mises.org, Jeffrey Tucker. The core of the theory is that "intellectual property" is not property and thus no one has the right to exclusive use of it, not even the original creator of the work. My initial public drive-by sniper shot at the theory occurred in my post,
Stephan Kinsella versus Barack Obama On Copyright Protection. Just having a little fun at the expense of the anti-intellectual property crusader who bars anyone from profiting from his work.
I believe the relationship between property and government is greatly misunderstood, even by libertarians, and I am in the very early stages of putting a book together on the topic. I believe a number of errors Kinsella makes are based on this misunderstanding of property and government, but a full treatment of this will have to wait for the book. However, I have been carefully observing Kinsella's commentary, and indeed had planned to, over-time, turn up the heat a bit and highlight, here at EPJ, some of my disagreements with Kinsella.
This brings us to this past week when an article by Kinsella water carrier, Tucker, appeared at LRC in the top slot,
Authors: Beware of Copyright. The article appeared under perfect storm conditions for me. It was a slow news day as far as I was concerned, and I was having trouble finding anything in the news to comment about for EPJ. Plus, I had some time on my hands, and there, seemingly growing in size, was the Tucker article which I found quite amusing, given that some of Mises publishing tactics had been made public and seemed to be the types that Tucker, I thought incorrectly, was warning about. Thus, I wrote my piece,
Mises Institute: Do As They Say, Not As They Do? Now since writing this piece, I have learned that some believe that I was charging MI with being hypocritical, by saying one thing and doing another. I can see how this interpretation can occur given the title to my post, but please be assured that I was not making such a charge.Under Rockwell at MI that doesn't happen. My view was simply that Tucker was blind to what was going on around him, and, again, I found it amusing. It was very easy for me to believe that Tucker was clueless on what he was saying since he seems to be as clueless on the entire topic of intellectual property.
So what is Tucker's stance on IP? Let's see what he has to say. In a review of
against intellectual property,
he writes (my emphasis):
...if you are like most people, you figure that copyrights and patents are consistent with the justice that comes from giving the innovator his due. In principle they seem fine, even if the law might be in need of reform...
That changed in 2001 with the publication of Stephan Kinsella's article and now monograph "Against Intellectual Property." He made a strongly theoretical argument that ideas are not scarce, do not require rationing, are not diminished by their dissemination, and so cannot really be called property. All IP is unjust, he wrote. It is inconsistent with libertarian ethics and contrary to a free market. He favors the complete repeal of all intellectual-property laws...
Kinsella's article continued to haunt me personally. It took about six years or so, but I finally worked through all the theoretical problems and came to embrace his view...
It is not just a matter of deciding what you believe from a theoretical or political perspective. It is not just a matter of thinking that "pirates" are not really violating moral law...To fully absorb what these authors say changes the way you look at technology....IP is a form of exploitation and expropriation that is gravely dangerous for civilization itself.
Thus, among other absurdities, Tucker now appears to believe that it is not morally wrong to illegally download music! and that:
...people like James Watt, Eli Whitney, and the Wright Brothers are not heroes of innovation, as legend has it, but rent-seeking mercantilists who dramatically set back the cause of technological development. These people spent vast resources prohibiting third parties from improving "their" product and making it available at a cheaper price. Instead of promoting innovation and profitability, they actually stopped it, even at the cost of their own business dreams.
Note his quotes around "their". Eli Whitney invents the cotton gin and sets back technology? The Wright brothers invent the plane and set back flying?
Tucker confuses monopoly here, which again is too much to get into in this post, other than to note it that if I create something and hide it in a closet, and agree to let you see it, only if you agree not to tell anyone what you see,to me this is a contract between two people and fine. Apparently not for Tucker. To him it is being a "rent-seeking mercantilist". He wants you, once you see it, to, if you so choose, open it to the world. Tucker doesn't realize it but he is attacking the sacredness of contract,and replacing it with a commie "for the common good" view , i.e., how it will benefit society.
You can apply this thinking to any product, work etc. and you do indeed have communism.
But, the fact of the matter, is Tucker, aside from his theoretical musings, doesn't really believe in what he is expounding. I sent him this email to put him to the test:
from Robert Wenzel
to jatucker@mindspring.com
date Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:54 PM
subject Publication Permissions
Dear Mr. Tucker,
I continue to be fascinated by your views on copyright. After reviewing a number of your writings, I get the sense that, like Stephan Kinsella, you believe that writings should not be classified as "intellectual property" and others should not be prevented from copying works in full.
You write, for example,
So I say to all authors: please look at your contracts. Don't sign your life away. Publish on the condition of Creative Commons. Claim your rights back as a creator and an author.
How does this work? You have to copyright your work if only to prevent others from claiming copyright and thereby binding all other living persons, including you, from publishing it. Once you claim copyright, add that it is published under the Creative Common License 3.0. This rids your manuscript or song or painting of copyright's provision of doom: the requirement that only one institution can control it.
In other words, it makes your creation part of the free market. It can be posted, recorded, shown, photographed, celebrated by one and all forever. Isn't this why you create in the first place? Isn't this what drove you to write, paint, photograph, sing, or whatever? You want to make a difference. You want credit for your work. This permits it.
Old-fashioned copyright is nothing but a form of modern tyranny in the digital age. It has no future. Bail out of this wicked institution and make sure that your work has a future too.
I would like to test just how much you and the Mises Institute believe this. I note for example that MI hold rights to Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. I hereby respectfully request that you grant me the publishing rights to this book that you believe I would have if there were no copyright laws.
Sincerely,
Robert Wenzel
Tucker responded:
from Jeffrey Tucker
to Robert Wenzel
date Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:27 PM
subject Re: Publication Permissions
you want to publish Last Knight? Seriously?
My response:
from Robert Wenzel
to Jeffrey Tucker
date Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM
subject Re: Publication Permissions
Yes.
Tucker, back to me:
from Jeffrey Tucker
to Robert Wenzel
date Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM
subject Re: Publication Permissions
bullshit
Ah, so much for free use of intellectual property by everyone.
I hereby publicly request Jeffrey Tucker apologize for his rude, crude response to my attempt to further intellectual debate.
And, I further request that Tucker and the Mises Institute immediately either:
A. grant me publishing rights to
Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism or
B. stop promoting the idiotic nonsense that there is no such thing as intellectual property rights.
To refuse to grant me rights (and please know, I am researching what other books MI may hold copyrights to and will be requesting that publishing rights for these also be granted me, e.g. Rothbard writings, Rockwell writings) and to continue to publish that there is no such thing as intellectual property rights is, as of the time of this post, hypocritical, and not just the misguided thinking of the very rude Tucker.