Monday, October 28, 2013

Murray Rothbard on Intellectual Property

A number of anti-IP proponents have attempted to bring the great economist Murray Rothbard into their camp. However, a careful reading of the sections in Man, Economy and State, on copyright and patent should make clear that Rothbard was not against IP law.

He was completely in favor of copyright law and was only against patent law because of the way it is currently structured, that is, current patent law granst monopoly protection to the first discoverer, rather than protection to each independent discoverer.

I recently posted a fascinating historic talk by Rothbard that he gave in 1981 at the  National Libertarian Party Convention, the entire speech should be listened to, but one thing that especially caught my ear occurred during the Q&A when a question was asked about IP. Here's Rothbard's response, which makes clear that he is not anti-IP.

17 comments:

  1. Voluntary contract over intellectual agreements and government imposed IP are two different things. You are defending the latter and selling it as the former.

    I have said it many times...for IP to be treated as modern IP proponents envision it requires the NSA on steroids because every data packet could contain someones "stolen property". This does not sound very libertarian to me.

    Mr. Wenzel your blog is great on just about everything except this issue which I believe you have a personal biased due to your methods of income. You have to sort out your inner contradiction regarding the current statist version of IP and what the true free market would reason with. Rothbard simply isn't going to protect you from yourself on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awake,

      I do not believe Mr. Wenzel is guilty of what you are accusing him of. I've never read anything by Wenzel in which he states that he supports current IP law. I've only heard him, correctly IMO, argue that copyright is compatible with a voluntaryist society.

      You do raise an interesting point, however, a point in which I believe gets overlooked in nearly every debate over the issue of IP. This is whether or not any private firm would be willing to take on the costs of protecting such material in the age of the internet. I believe it would be reserved to material extremely unique and rare, if it were to exist at all.

      I believe that RW is not arguing that firms offering copyright services would exist in a voluntary society with current technology, only that that they could.

      Delete
  2. He's a libertarian except when it comes to intangible property and limited liability entities. In other words, he supports govt policies which transfer wealth upwards but not those that transfer it downwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well read on Rothbard now are we Jerry?

      Delete
    2. He doesn't believe in government period you moron. You can't transfer something without taxation. Once again, either a troll or a complete idiot.

      Delete
    3. I think Mr. Wolfgang is curious about the philosophy of liberty. I have a suspicion that if Mr. Rockwell allowed comments on his site we would see his name there on a regular basis. You guys shouldn't be rude to him, as long as he has civil comments.

      Delete
    4. Jerry,

      I cannot recall an instance in which you have left a thoughtful reply that contributes to the article in question. To quote Gary North, "two of you would not make a half-wit."

      Rothbard's stance does not "support govt policies which transfer wealth upwards but not those that transfer it downwards." Government IP policy, like all government policy, serves only the wealthy by providing "free" protection services that would otherwise be extremely expensive. Please see my reply to Awake, above.

      Delete
    5. https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/1be59fd4393287e46b8c112a961756dd/tumblr_mknsn3qShJ1qzfajio1_500.gif

      Delete
  3. Wenzel,

    Could we please, please, please have an IP debate with someone with whom you can be civil?
    I nominate Block.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe a debate between Ilana Mercer and RW? They seem to respect each other. And on her website she is adamantly opposed to IP, both patents AND copyright.

      Delete
  4. Brilliant excerpt! Thank you for posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are exactly right Wenzel, but Rothbard was wrong on this issue, and never delved into it too deeply.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Copy right and intellectual property are two separate items. Saying Rothbard would have supported IP laws is disingenuous at best.

    ReplyDelete
  7. get a grip guys, it's not that f'n complicated. enforcing copyright is fully compatible with the NAP as it falls under natural contract laws.

    enforcing a patent is not compatible with the nap. if i reverse engineer a product and start producing my own version i have every right to defend myself from those trying to put me out of business. the fact that most IP warriors don't support "patents" on things like shirt sleeves, tables and the hamburger is the "canary in the coal-mine" exposing a a failure to follow their reasoning to it's absurd implications...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesnt fall under natural contract laws, copyright is essentially saying you own a certain string of words, it says that you own the string of words that make a book, this book might have lets say 300.000 words, so according to you copyright supporters you can own a string of words like that, now lets use a favourite tool of Mises and Rothbard, lets use reduction ad absurdum, if you own a string of words that is 300.000 words long then you should be able to own a string of words that is 1000 words long, 200 words, 20 words and even 1 word long! This means that if I invent a new word I can now demand everyone else pay me for it! (how do you even set the price for this absent voluntary exchange?).

      Delete
  8. The issue seems of property and selling. If you can copy it yourself or obtain it free and/or give it free is it still an infringement? Technology giveth and technology taketh away. Records or LP vinyl was a legit hayday but once cassettes and digital age came along the model fails and evolution occurs. Information is meant to be free (IMHO). Secrets are information and Trade secrets must remain secret. The one who has stolen the secret is liable for damage. If published in a form that is freely copyable why should someone be able to force me from using abundant resource. No harm no foul. And the harm of taking away potential sales is no harm because of a failed mode compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is what you get when you open the door to copyright:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/record-label-sues-youtube-star-for-using-its-artists-house-music/

    "YouTube star hit with copyright lawsuit, label seeks $150,000 per song"

    ReplyDelete