Lew Rockwell on Intellectual Property

Lew Rockwell has a short post on Apple's attempt to defend its right to contract. Writes Lew:

February 15, 2009

Calling Kinsella and Tucker

Posted by Lew Rockwell at February 15, 2009 12:31 PM

Apple wants to jail you and fine you if you alter your own property. Just another indication that "intellectual property," as Stephan and Jeff say, is the destruction of real property rights for the benefit of bogus ones, not so speak of an attack on human betterment.

I'm just not getting Lew's line of argument on this very important topic.

If anyone makes any type of product and sells it with stipulations, i.e. with contract, I don't see how I have the right to violate that contract. If Apple sells a phone and says, "We are selling this phone with the stipulation that you don't mess with the insides," I am free to take that deal or walk away.

If I take the deal and then mess with the insides, in my book that is violating contract. Just what gives me the right to overrule a contract we both agree on? If Apple makes you sign a contract that it will only sell the phone if you don't mess with the insides, and you sign it, and are aware of the terms Apple expects you to live up to, and you then mess with the insides, aren't you a liar by telling Apple one thing and doing another?

A "Bullshit" Response from Jeffrey Tucker

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.

Four Years of Gridlock?

Lew Rockwell sees four years of gridlock, with Republican leaders returning to their free market, limited government roots. Let's hope that is the case and not just wishful thinking on Lew's part because of the current lame duck Congress dragging its feet on a bailout of the auto industry.

Without gridlock, it is a continued march towards totalitarianism.

The Take On Paul Krugman As Government Apologist

From Bill Anderson here.

and

Lew Rockwell here.

Rockwell: Stop The Bailout

Lew Rockwell nails it:

Let me state this very plainly: I do not believe for one second that if the government fails to nationalize Freddie and Fannie, that the world as we know it will come to an end. Those who are saying that are trying to scare the population, the same as with every other major demand by the regime. It was the same with Nafta, the WTO, the war on terror, the war on bird flu, the nationalization of airport security, and everything else.

If the government did nothing but sell off the assets of the mortgage giants, we do not know for sure what would happen, but the market has a way of finding value and readjusting. I would expect about 18 months of difficulties. Banks would fail just as many businesses in the free market fail every day. Housing prices would fall more, just as all market prices are subject to change. But the process of readjustment would be smooth and rational. Most important, we would all stop living a lie and believing an illusion

His complete column is here.

-Robert Wenzel

What The Hell Are Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo and James Ostrowski Thinking?

Rockwell, DiLorenzo and Ostrowski are all ga ga, here, here and here, over John McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin. They write she's a Paulian, she's a Buchanaite, in fact, she probably would jump on any bandwagon that has wheels and is looking to stir up trouble.

As we have already pointed out, Palin signed into law a $6.6 billion operating budget—the largest in Alaska's history.

Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards. Of course, basic economics teaches the last thing you want to do, when a commodity is rising in price, is to encourage consumption. She also proposed providing grants to electrical utilities so that they would reduce customers' rates, again the last thing you want to do. She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly.

In short, economically clueless.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, she has put her son in line for a potential tour of duty in Iraq. He joined the army on 9-11-07. Nuff said.

Frankly, what we have here is Mary Tyler Moore without the Ford mustang--maybe a great candidate to star in a modern day version of the Minnesota-based situation comedy, but not a Minnesota convention-based Republican VP candidate.

In Case You Missed Last Night's Convention Speakers

Lew Rockwell has provided a complete summary:

Last night at their convention, Pelosi gave one of her victimology speeches about ceilings: glass, marble, etc. and how she's a role model for the entire female sex, provided they want to be crooked, pro-war, power-mad, get-rich-through-politics rip-off artists. Jim Leach, a Republican nobody, gave the most boring talk in human history about supporting Obama, I think. Teddy Kennedy promised the weeping NEA masses that he would not die until he had imposed even more socialism on the American people. This was after a moving film of him in his ocean-going, Koch-size yacht, and how being close to the sea makes him love welfare recipients, or something like that. Jimmy Carter, who looked great, was not allowed to speak for fear he might mention the Middle East. Michelle Obama, who also looked great, explained that she had children, parents, and a husband, not to mention a brother. Then there were the manifold shots of Senator Max Headroom. Biden doesn't look human any more. Maybe it's one too many face lifts, hair transplants, tooth implants, chin jobs, nose jobs, neck jobs, tanning-booth sessions, or eye jobs (speaking of the scary Pelosi ).

Lew Rockwell On Supposed "Bankrupt Banks"

Lew Rockwell, on his blog, provides some odd advice, today. Rockwell under the headline "Bankrupt Banks" writes:

The whole system is shaky because of fractional reserves, of course, but if you have more than $100,000 in Wachovia, WaMu, or Downey, GET IT OUT.

But, why single out these banks, and try to play bank analyst? The prudent thing to do, since FDIC coverage is good for only $100,000 per bank, is to never have more than $100,000 at any one bank.

Inside Info: Economic Meltdown

Lew Rockwell points out:

Running under David Gregory's show on MSNBC is the banner "Economic Meltdown." Gregory is clearly nervous. After all he has inside info: his wife is a high official of Fannie Mae.

Surprising Kool-Aid Drinkers

David Friedman, who should know better, gives Obama a lukewarm endorsement:

I regard Obama as pretty clearly the least bad of the candidates.

It is an endorsement, none the less.

And over at LewRockwell.com, Lew Rockwell, himself, has been noticeably silent on Obama, as Obama proposes intervention after intervention. Perhaps Rockwell is not drinking the Kool-Aid, but merely sniffing---but this stance from a leading libertarian has to go down as shocking.

Is it possible that the Ron Paul newsletter brouhaha is stifling Rockwell from speaking out against a black man?

It appears that only Anthony Gregory, at the LRC blog, is clear on the very real dangers of an Obama presidency.

Folks, please read this again:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/obamas-ties-to-acorn.html

and explain to me where you see anything less than a full totalitarian blooming.