Is intellectual property legitimate? \ stacker news ~AskSN

pull down to refresh

919 sats \ 37 comments \ @mtk4000 14 Apr AskSN

Inspired by Jack Dorsey's recent "delete all IP law" post and the ensuing debate, I'm wondering what SN thinks. Answer "Yes" if you think some amount of copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc. are morally justified, or have a net benefit to society, or whatever fits your definition of "legitimate." Otherwise answer "No."

Discuss.

Yes20.8%

No79.2%

48 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

174 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr

Anyone answering “yes” should take a look at Stephen Kinsella’s work on the subject.

146 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan 14 Apr

Hmm, shameless self-promotion. https://mises.org/mises-wire/absurdity-intellectual-property-laws

Not even remotely as eloquent or smart as Kinsella

104 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 15 Apr

Nice article! Helped me understand that point of view. Had a conversation with @k00b about this topic: #903997

I basically agree with the premise. But I'm not as optimistic that information producers can so easily monetize their work... it's not as easy as "making Spotify", so to speak. And one should consider that Spotify itself is a bit monopolistic, achieving its market power through platform externalities.

I'm more of the opinion that IP laws do more harm than good... and even if we lessen the market incentive to produce content, I think the best content creators have always been the intrinsically motivated ones, not the commercially motivated ones.

I think we'll survive and still get good research / good art, even without heavy IP laws.

13 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr

That's a very high bar. I'm sure you did fine, though.

23 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr

And, now that I've finished it (perhaps for the second time), I can confirm that you did indeed do a very fine job.

You made a good succinct and intuitive case for why the idea doesn't make sense. It's nice to have companion pieces like this, since not everyone wants to wade through the entirety of Stephen's case.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 15 Apr

Y'alls are too kind!

213 sats \ 3 replies \ @mtk4000 OP 14 Apr

I asked Grok to briefly summarize Stephen Kinsella's work on intellectual property, so here's a TLDR:

Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian legal theorist and patent attorney, is best known for his strong opposition to intellectual property (IP) rights, particularly patents and copyrights. In his influential work, Against Intellectual Property (2008), he argues that IP is incompatible with libertarian principles and property rights. Kinsella contends that ideas and information are not scarce resources like physical property, so granting monopolies over them through IP laws creates artificial scarcity, stifles innovation, and infringes on individual liberty. He asserts that copying or using someone’s idea does not deprive the originator of their property, making IP enforcement a form of coercion that violates the non-aggression principle. Instead, he advocates for a free market where innovation thrives without state-backed IP protections, relying on voluntary contracts and natural incentives. His work has sparked significant debate within libertarian and legal circles, challenging conventional views on IP.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 14 Apr

Libertarian ideology regularly goes too far. Yes some IP is obstructive and rentseeking but some is justified as an incentive for the development of new ideas and creative work. Without IP some projects would not be viable unless funded by taxes. It is a question of balance- something Libertarian ideology, as an extremist ideology, lacks.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BallLightning 15 Apr

I think somebody has thought about that and that's why ip rights and patents expire and are not perpetual. Whether this is the perfect system I don't know.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr

Good summary

139 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker 14 Apr

What would be his response to the typical refrain that without IP laws, you'd discourage innovation and artistic expression? Voluntary contracts only work if other people can't steal or copy your work.

In any case, I'm not convinced that the benefit of eliminating IP laws wouldn't outweigh the potential costs on disincentivizing innovation.

It just seems to me a lot of the best scientists and artists are intrinsically motivated anyway. And that a lot of slop is invented to take advantage of IP laws.

120 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr

What would be his response to the typical refrain that without IP laws, you'd discourage innovation and artistic expression?

The empirical evidence doesn't support such an assertion and the burden of proof should be on them to prove it does what they claim, before infringing on everyone else's property rights.

Check out Against Intellectual Monopoly for that argument. Stephen's Against Intellectual Property also covers the empirical case, but adds more to the philosophical case, which he was more interested in.

If it's a topic that interests you, you can find any of the hundreds of interviews, debates, and pods that Stephen's done on the topic, pretty easily.

I'd also suggest you think about whether the disincentivization case even makes sense from an auction theory standpoint. I've never worked it through myself, but just casually thinking about it, it's not clear that the current system of all-pay auctions is better in terms of expected payoffs. All-pay auctions reduce the amount contestants are willing to invest in the first place and yet still manage to often generate social losses. We might actually be getting much less far in intellectual production than we otherwise would and at greater cost.

67 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 14 Apr

Interesting. I'm inclined to believe you. Sadly, I don't have time for another rabbit hole right now haha, but i'll bookmark this comment for future reference.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr

This one is quite the rabbit hole. I was pretty obsessed with the topic about a decade ago.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 14 Apr

What empirical evidence doesn't support the common sense logic that creators receiving income from the use of their ideas are rewarded and incentivised by IP?

Just saying the empirical evidence does not support something is not empirical evidence- it is pure BS.

Where is the empirical evidence that IP laws disincentivize creative work? SILENCE!

39 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 15 Apr

Innovation thrives when it can build freely upon what's already there.

Look at FOSS.

77 sats \ 0 replies \ @endothermicdev 15 Apr

As an engineer and someone who has filed several patents, I like the idea of incentivizing creativity with a temporary monopoly on your own work, and then opening it up to the commons with full documentation. In practice, I think the system is abused and does more harm than good in this day and age. Patents are now mostly used as defense in high cost, high stakes lawfare.

The patent system needs major reform and the USPTO needs much better help vetting submissions. The duration is too long on fast developing fields and claims are being accepted that should never be patentable in the first place. There's a whole cottage industry of patent trolls who have never created anything of their own, but can theorize someone else might try to make a product that does X and they file an overly broad patent for it. If these sort of abuses can't be corrected, I think we'd be better off without IP rights entirely.

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @zapsammy 15 Apr

asking for protection of Intellectual Property is an appeal to authority. the one asking for it probably sucks at or is afraid of competition.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 15 Apr

Asking for protection of your ownership rights to real estate and other tangible property is equally appealing to authority. You want to return to the law of the jungle?

3 sats \ 8 replies \ @alt 15 Apr

there's a clear difference though, in that you can protect your own rights to physical, tangible property. you don't need to appeal to authority to stop somebody stealing your house (in principle).

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 21h

Nonsense. Who issues and authorizes the ownership of land and property titles and their transfer? Without the authority of the state you have no ownership of property. When you transfer the ownership of your house you must go to the authorities to register the transfer. 'Ownership' of real estate or any 'property' is am abstract human construct and relies upon the support of the relevant territorial authority.

69 sats \ 3 replies \ @alt 19h

Without the authority of the state you have no ownership of property.

Absolute nonsense. You speak like this is a fundamental truth of being, rather than merely a consequence of the pervasiveness of the modern state.

The state is not a prerequisite for property.

If any person/group has a monopoly on violence, then you have a choice: abide by their rules (and have them use their monopoly in your favour) or operate outside of their rules (becoming the target of their violence). It doesn't follow that an entity with such a monopoly is in any way necessary.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19h

If the state is not present and you wish to assert a right of exclusive ownership you must be capable of asserting and defending that claim.

You then have the law of the jungle- ie no law.

It is then simply a case of might is right and any property you may think you own can be taken from you by force by any more powerful violent entity than you.

It is only with the state that rule of law and secure property rights, especially those over territory, can be achieved.

In the absence of the nation state you are forced to become one yourself, by default, in order to assert any right to any property.

The ability of the state to secure property rights efficiently and equitably is a primary reason why the state is a major catalyst in and driver of the wealth of nations. Without the state to provision such security individuals are forced to expend disproportionate resources simply to defend their 'property' with little security and ability to invest in development of productive capital assets and infrastructure.

view all 2 replies

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @zapsammy 19h

a pinecone for an avatar is wishful thinking. maybe that's why it's pictured sideways as opposed to upright. there is minimal illumination in most of this user's posts and his diseased mind is still as dull as a brick in the pyramid of control.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19h

When you cannot refute my arguments you resort to crude and childish shoot the messenger trolling.

You thereby admit defeat, by default, in the contest of ideas, by demonstrating your inability to debate the facts and issues raised and instead stooping to personal attacks in an attempt to deflect from the weakness of your ideological position.

For your edification, information, amusement or perhaps more likely, feedstock for further abuse, the pinecone shown is specifically that of a Pinenut tree and I am planting a small forest of these edible nut trees. From that one pinecone I will have extracted perhaps 30 seeds and planted perhaps a dozen seedlings...secure in the property rights of the land upon which I make this investment.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 15 Apr

one can hire a private gang to go after select IP abusers. a gang big enough can go after multiple abusers, but no gang can go after everyone.

204 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinHandsOn 14 Apr

I've been struggling with this one. But I think I need to say no, it's not legit.

It kind of turns a lot of things upside down, though, if you delete all IP laws.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 14 Apr

No.

Stephen Kinsella all the way.

Reason? IP is false analogy to (physical) property. It doesn't have scarcity (really: rivalrousness), so laws protecting it is as unnatural and absurd as illegal numbers.

Go fuck yourselves, statists

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 15 Apr

Without the sate and its laws and enforcement of property rights you will have a very fragile and vulnerable economy. The nation state and its ability to enforce property rights is a significant contributor to the wealth of nations.

There has never been a sustained and prosperous economy without a government to oversee and protect its resources, property rights, rule of law, trade routes and markets.

If someone develops a new idea, medicine or process, and that idea, medicine or process has value then it is adding value to the economy. To fail to reward the originator of that idea, medicine or process is to fail to reward technological and creative value development. Such a failure is to disincentivize and stifle development and creative work in your economy. Only Libertarians could be so deluded as to think that is a good outcome.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Dkryptoenth 4h

That’s a deep and debated question, and the answer depends on what angle you're coming from—legal, ethical, economic, or philosophical.

Legal Perspective:

Yes, it's legitimate. Most countries have laws protecting intellectual property (IP), including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. These laws are meant to incentivize innovation and creativity by granting creators exclusive rights to their work for a limited time.

Ethical Perspective:

This is more contested. Some argue IP rights are morally justified because creators deserve control and compensation for their work. Others argue that ideas and knowledge should be shared freely, especially if restricting them harms society (e.g., life-saving drugs behind paywalls).

Economic Perspective:

Proponents say IP encourages innovation and investment by ensuring a return on R&D. Critics argue that IP can stifle competition, slow down innovation, and create monopolies, especially when protections are too strong or last too long.

Philosophical / Libertarian Perspective:

Some libertarians (e.g., thinkers like Stephan Kinsella) argue that IP isn't legitimate because it violates property rights. According to them, you can't own an idea the same way you own physical property—it can be copied without depriving the original owner.

Legally? Yes.

Ethically and philosophically? Depends on your values and priorities.

So it all depends on where you're coming from. 💁

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kontext 15 Apr

The Open Source Culture Manifesto summarizes my thoughts on the subject: #883698

A couple of tl;dr highlights:

"Open Source Culture represents the simple idea that ideas are free. That information yearns to be free. We acknowledge that copyright laws are unsuitable for a world that’s highly digitized; where content and information are, and should be, abundant and readily available for anyone."

"First mover advantage is the only real intellectual property right. In another sense, bitcoin is the only real intellectual property anyway. It’s the only thing that’s scarce. All the rest of it can be as abundant as we let it be. "Intellectual property" are, after all, mere ideas and no one can "own" ideas. Copyright laws are nothing else than an impediment to creativity and a gatekeeper to knowledge. Charging money for information, which in digital form is near-free to store and transfer, might as well be considered a form of usury."

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 15 Apr

Would there be any reason to create anything if you arent paid for it?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lazy_AMA 15 Apr

It is extremely legitimate, and a person's intellectual property shouldn't be tampered with. It is a criminal offence to tamper with a person's intellectual work. It's a copyright offence.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 15 Apr

IP rights violate normal property rights.

If I have a file on my computer I can copy it, because it's my data (information is non-rivalrous and non-excludable) and my computer. And I can print it, because it's my printer and my ink.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 14 Apr

The CCP been stealing IP for decades. Yet they are great at some things and terrible at others. Maybe with AI and the Information Age maybe it is time to move away or maybe loosen IP laws