Libertarianism And Intellectual Property [0109.1999]

Rationale

I just found a site, ipnot.org, that proclaims to be "Opposed to Intellectual Property on every frontier". I haven't read it yet, but it got me thinking. I've also been listening to the really excellent Essence of Political Persuasion tapeset, aimed at helping libertarians spread libertarian ideas. (Not just a great memetic tactic, but a great buy: 3 tapes for $5!)

Anyway, I've got mixed feelings about intellectual property, and I wanted to explore them here. Comments are welcome: sabren@manifestation.com.

As always, I'm just rambling here.. Just thinking. I call these "rants" for a reason.. :) People read my last one and started asking me if I was depressed.. I'm sure I'll get emails asking me if I'm a commie or a capitalist or some other such nonsense.. But, if you can restrain yourself, don't.. I'm just THINKING here, and sharing my thoughts. If you want to contribute to the memepool, by all means, do so.

[after writing this, I wonder if the word memepool is someone's IP just because there's a great website by that name..]

Libertarianism

Having worked for the government (through Americorps and at Georgianet), I can't exactly call myself anti-government. Sure, I hate Social Security and the IRS. I'm not too fond of the military. But I've yet to see a better ("market" as the libertarians say) alternative.

I'm a big fan of personal freedom. I like GNU software because I have the freedom to do whatever I want with it. I love the web because I can learn just about anything I want for free. Not only is it free (except for the connection), it's better than the alternatives: the web is current, while books are several months out of date by the time they hit the shelves. The web gives me random access to its treasures, while TV channels (necessarily) make the choices for me.

Then there's NLP. I think it's incredibly unfair for people to strangle NLP's development via trademarks, copyrights, etc. That's why I started project openmind (which isn't doing much, admittedly). I mean, everyone ought to be able to learn how to master their own brains, not just the people who shell out the big bucks to some narcissistic trainer. (I almost made that a link to someone's website, but I couldn't decide which of the infinite set of narcissistic NLP trainers to use)

How can I be a fan of anything that tells me what I can and can't do? The more I learn about Libertarianism, the more that makes sense to me: why should schools be government-run? I've worked in both privately run and government run schools, and private schools are a hell of a lot better. And why shouldn't they be commercially funded? Texas Instruments founded UTD because they wanted to produce more tech-savy people. I've always thought schools - even elementary schools - could be productive, and actually create knowledge...

But I digress. The point is I'm all for liberty, for freedom, and the ability to do whatever I want, when I want.

Intellectual Property

Does intellectual property infringe on liberty?

I think it stifles innovation. It infringes on people's liberty to innovate and be creative by forcing people to reinvent the wheel.

Linux shows us that there are plenty of people out there willing to work long and hard to create something useful for no money. Free software gives us shoulders to stand on, and it gives us the freedom to use each others ideas to do more. That's why, a few years from now, selling software will be a thing of the past.

Coporations won't be able to sell expensive software, because individual developers will be able to fine-tune freely available code for their clients. Instead, companies and individuals will sell support, training, and custom development. I like that world.

But what would happen if tomorrow, IP laws disappeared?

On a personal level, anyone could copy my website and claim it as their own. Well, so what? They can do that now, and there's not much I can do about it. For example, check out this site: an italian version of speed seduction. [a psuedo-english version via Altavista's babelfish] Ross wasn't to happy about it (apparently, it's mostly derived from his work.. the FAQ page even mentions him), but what can he do? The site's in Italy.

Ross certainly has the money to endure a court case and sue someone here in the states for copying his work, but I don't. In fact, I really don't care all that much. I make my money as a programmer, not a content provider.

Take Microsoft. If IP went away tomorrow, anyone could copy their software. Employees could run off with the source code and start a competeting business. Bill would get really paranoid, and set up some kind of massive security system to keep his own people from stealing the code. Rather than the threat of legal actions, they'd have to rely on other threats to control employees.

That's not inherently true.. Microsoft also relies on giving their employees a salary and benefits, and to some extent, prestige.. And the fact that the entire borg collective can accompish more than one little hacker.

But say someone ran to Corel with the code. Or to the Free Software Foundation. There'd be nothing stopping them from distributing the code. Or putting the microsoft brand name on something.

Ah. IP restricts my freedom to put the Microsoft brand name on my products. Interesting. Not that I have any products, or would want to put that name on them, but the law pretty much says I can't.

Basically, software companies would crumble without IP. But what about drug companies? I'm sure Merck would pay a pretty big chunk of money for drug formulas being tested over at Pfizer.

But by the same token, anyone with a chemistry lab could produce drugs..

Blah blah blah..

Chunking Up

Basically, IP keeps companies from stealing each others ideas. Individuals lose because they have to buy technology that they could replicate for free given the time and know-how.

Without IP, companies couldn't rest on their accomplishments, because people would steal them and compete. They couldn't rely on advertising, because that only strengthens a brand name, and anyone could use it. Sure, they could set up deals with retailers, but there's nothing stopping store 1 from adopting store 2's name and identity..

In short, it would be pretty darn chaotic.

Do I own myself??

That brings up a good point. Is my personality my intellectual property? My name? My signature?

The Indians

American Indians didn't go for the notion of personal property. Who owns a tree? Who owns the sky? Who can own the land? That kind of thing.

a better way

The more I think about it, the more I realize that getting rid of IP just isn't a good idea. It's not a very pleasant concept, but why fight it? Right now, it protects a lot of people's lifestyles.. Besides, the only way to toss IP at the moment is armed revolution, because so few people would vote for it... And who wants an armed revolution?

But there are better ways. Look at the GNU people. Or at Linux. They didn't violate anyone's IP. They just created their own thing, and decided to share. And everyone benefits.

Some day, we're goin to have decent virtual reality and nanotech. With VR, we'll be able to create anything we want without using expensive natural resources. With nanotech, we can use those resources to create things in the real world, but at almost no cost.

When we have those technologies, government isn't going to make sense. Money isn't going to make sense. Individuals will have the power to wipe out whole nations by creating ultra-destructive nanotech viruses, but that power will be kept in check by every other person's ability to create and share an antidote.

Money and power just won't mean anything anymore. "Property" won't mean anything.

ugh

Well, I'm way off topic. I still don't know if I'm for intellectual property or against it. I think mostly it's okay for other people, but I don't personally need it, and I prefer to work with open systems and openminded people.

Anyway..