Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 344. This is my appearance with Adam Terrell of the Theocracy podcast: 022 Copyrights Are Unlawful with Stephan Kinsella (recorded May 7, 2021). From his shownotes: Now, some of you know I have a background in media production. And I have gotten royalty checks and benefitted from a copyright "tradition" (I don't call it law) on multiple occasions, and I have family who have had their entire livelihoods supported by it. So how can I say in the title that "Copyrights Are Unlawful?" Stephan Kinsella is my guest today. I found him through Tom Woods's podcast years back, and I've run in to his talks at Mises University online several times. He's a patent attorney who has helped me think through these issues practically relating to intellectual property and why it doesn't exist. I believe there is a Bible verse I can point to as well in Exodus, but we'll get to that. We get in to some less-than-settled issues as well. Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/07enqNJEVY2HS2dV62CtRr Youtube: https://youtu.be/ml_yZqTtlWM

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 343. This is an IP and libertarianism Q&A. It was originally supposed to be a debate with an intellectual property attorney on IP but after challenging me, she bowed out. I went live at the appointed time anyway and discussed it briefly, and fielded questions from those that tuned in. We started off in Youtube live stream and because it sucks, I switched over to a Zoom call 34 minutes in so others could ask questions and participate (next time I'll use Zoom only). This started when someone on Twitter recommended my Against Intellectual Property: https://twitter.com/lpky/status/1402789745407807488 To which one @libertascoco responded with this snipe: https://twitter.com/libertascoco/status/1402820244851154945 It later turned out that she is be soi-disant IP attorney Nina Prevot, whose Youtube channel is here and who has discussed and ham-fisted, ineptly attempted to defend IP here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNq5J7YoBOo Then she challenged me to a debate, after falsely claiming I never debate people: https://twitter.com/libertascoco/status/1402993126915010567 I instantly took her up on it: https://twitter.com/NSKinsella/status/1402995267234779144 But she ended up backing out so I went online at 7pm anyway. The main reason I was willing to debate her was to let observers see how weak her arguments would be, and to confirm my repeated claim that “There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property” (see also “Absurd Arguments for IP”). Anyhow, I went online as noted above and discussed IP and other libertarian issues with the audience. This one was not as tight as most of my material, and I thought it was a bit sloppy and all over the map, but many of the participants seemed to enjoy it, so here it is, FWIW. Youtube of the discussion: https://youtu.be/G0_3ffxzHz0 Cade Share, "A Defense of Rothbardian Ethics via a Mediation of Hoppe and Rand"

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 342. The Bitcoin2021 audience Thanks to the good offices of my friend Vijay Boyapati, author of the new book-length version of The Bullish Case for Bitcoin, the organizers of bitcoin2021 in Miami, June 4-5 2021, graciously gave me two minutes to make an announcement about the Open Crypto Alliance (@OpenCryptoX) and its work, on Saturday June 5. I was introduced by Charlie Shrem. Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/-ns4R3Y41Lw Note (4/20/22): The video above was taken down by a copyright strike from Bitcoin Magazine (ironically). They have promised to restore it, but in the meantime, here is the backup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVDNEnRAZU4&t=15865s Kinsella and Vijay Backstage with my copy of Vijay's Bullish Case for Bitcoin TRANSCRIPT Bitcoin2021 Announcement: Open Crypto Alliance Stephan Kinsella Bitcoin2021, Miami, June 5, 2021 My name is Stephan Kinsella and I'm a libertarian theorist, patent attorney, and patent abolitionist. I'm a member of the Open Crypto Alliance, recently formed to combat the growing threat to the bitcoin and blockchain ecosystems posed by patents being filed in this space, by companies such as nChain, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Mastercard, and others. nChain, for example, has over 20 European patents already granted, and hundreds more filed and pending and about 23,000 blockchain and crypto patents have been filed in the last couple years. These patent filings are of grave concern to those of us in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Our partner group, Square's Crypto Open Patent Alliance, or COPA, addresses this problem by having members pledge never to use their crypto-technology patents offensively. However, this is of limited use against patent trolls and patent holders who are not members of the alliance. Our group, the Open Crypto Alliance, is focused on preventing abusive patents from being granted in the first place by trying to knock these patents out. We do this by identifying dangerous patents, finding prior art that the patent office should have considered, and submitting a challenge to the patent. We are actually working on our first challenge and we're seeking help from experts who have a deep understanding of elliptic curve cryptography. If anyone would like to help, please contact us at www.OpenCryptoAlliance.org Thank you.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 341. This was a webinar I did for an Argentinian audience for ESEADE May 26, 2021. The topic was formally "Should We Release Patents on Vaccines" ("¿Hay que liberar las patentes sobre las vacunas?"). In this talk, I briefly provide an overview of the nature of property rights and the principled case against IP, then apply it to vaccines, and took questions from the audience. Grok shownotes: In this webinar hosted by ESEADE on May 26, 2021, Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian thinker and patent attorney, delivers a compelling case against intellectual property (IP) rights, focusing on the question of whether patents on vaccines should be released (0:00-6:05). Kinsella begins by outlining libertarian property rights, rooted in the Austrian School’s emphasis on scarcity and human action, arguing that property rights apply to scarce, physical resources, not intangible ideas (6:06-16:35). He critiques the utilitarian justification for patents, asserting they create artificial scarcity, hinder competition, and fail to deliver the promised innovation, using the vaccine patent debate as a case study to illustrate how patents restrict access to life-saving technologies (16:36-27:05). Kinsella’s libertarian framework emphasizes that ideas, being non-scarce, should be freely shared to maximize societal benefit, challenging the notion that patents are necessary for progress. Kinsella further dismantles the patent system by examining its historical roots in state-granted monopolies and its practical flaws, such as encouraging wasteful litigation and redundant research (27:06-37:50). He argues that vaccine patents, particularly during a global health crisis, exemplify the harm of IP by limiting production and access, proposing that abolishing patents would enhance innovation and availability (37:51-48:20). In the Q&A session, Kinsella addresses audience questions on trade secrets, the morality of IP, and the role of government in vaccine distribution, reinforcing his stance that a free market unburdened by IP would better serve humanity (48:21-1:02:42). He concludes by urging listeners to reject IP as a state-imposed distortion, advocating for a world where knowledge flows freely to drive progress (1:02:43-1:03:12). This lecture is a concise yet thorough exploration of libertarian principles applied to a pressing real-world issue. [Update: See also FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal; “Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance,” Brownstone Institute (April 1, 2024), Kinsella, "Are Patents Needed to Make Up for FDA Kneecapping?" (July 2, 2011).] Transcript and Grok DETAILED summary below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/EgYS8ldQ_AY Original video: https://youtu.be/-mjc7ZjYQ0o GROK SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s ESEADE webinar, delivered on May 26, 2021, addresses the question “Should We Release Patents on Vaccines?” while presenting a broader libertarian critique of intellectual property (IP). Using Austrian economics and libertarian property rights theory, Kinsella argues that patents, including those on vaccines, impose artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, stifling innovation and access. The 63-minute lecture, followed by a Q&A, combines theoretical insights with practical examples, advocating for the abolition of IP to foster a free market. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for each 5-15 minute block. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Libertarian Context (0:00-6:05): Kinsella is introduced as a leading libertarian thinker and patent attorney, setting the stage for his critique of IP and the vaccine patent debate. Property Rights and Scarcity (6:06-16:35): Explains libertarian property rights, emphasizing that only scarce, physical resources warrant ownership, not ideas, which are non-scarce. Critique of Patents’ Utilitarian Basis (16:36-27:05): Argues that patents fail to promote innovation, creating monopolies that restrict competition and access, especially for vaccines. Historical and Practical Flaws of Patents (27:06-37:50): Traces patents to state monopolies and highlights their inefficiencies, like litigation costs and redundant research. Vaccine Patents and Market Solutions (37:51-48:20): Applies the critique to vaccine patents, advocating for their abolition to increase production and access in a free market. Q&A and Broader Implications (48:21-1:02:42): Addresses audience questions on trade secrets, IP morality, and government’s role, reinforcing the case for abolishing IP. Conclusion and Call to Action (1:02:43-1:03:12): Urges listeners to reject IP as a statist distortion, promoting a free market driven by knowledge sharing. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Context) Description: Host Juan Ignacio Ibañez introduces Kinsella as a prominent libertarian thinker, patent attorney, and director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (0:00-2:35). Kinsella thanks ESEADE and outlines the lecture’s focus: applying libertarian property rights to the question of releasing vaccine patents (2:36-5:00). He sets a conversational tone, promising a Q&A session. Summary: The block establishes Kinsella’s credentials and the lecture’s goal, framing the vaccine patent debate within a libertarian critique of IP. 5:01-10:00 (Libertarian Property Rights Basics) Description: Kinsella introduces libertarian property rights, drawing on Austrian economists like Mises and Rothbard (5:01-7:20). He explains that property rights arise from scarcity, as only rivalrous resources require ownership to avoid conflict, using the example of a hammer (7:21-10:00). Ideas, being non-scarce, do not fit this framework. Summary: This block lays the theoretical foundation, contrasting scarce physical resources with non-scarce ideas to challenge the legitimacy of IP. 10:01-15:00 (Human Action and Ideas) Description: Kinsella uses Mises’ praxeology to describe human action, where individuals use scarce means to achieve ends, guided by knowledge (10:01-12:45). He argues that ideas, like recipes, are not means but guides, and their non-scarce nature means they can be shared without loss (12:46-15:00). Property rights in ideas (IP) are thus unnatural. Summary: The role of knowledge in guiding action is clarified, emphasizing that ideas’ non-scarcity makes IP an artificial restriction, setting up the vaccine patent critique. 15:01-20:00 (Critique of Patent Justifications) Description: Kinsella critiques the utilitarian argument for patents, which claims they incentivize innovation by granting monopolies (15:01-17:30). He argues that patents create artificial scarcity, raising costs and limiting competition, and questions their necessity, citing examples like open-source software (17:31-20:00). Summary: This block challenges the core justification for patents, highlighting their negative impact on competition and innovation, with implications for vaccines. 20:01-25:00 (Patents’ Harmful Effects) Description: Kinsella details how patents lead to monopolistic pricing, litigation, and redundant research, citing studies showing minimal innovation benefits (20:01-22:50). He connects this to vaccines, noting that patents restrict production, delaying access during pandemics (22:51-25:00). Summary: The practical harms of patents are outlined, with vaccine patents as a prime example of how IP exacerbates scarcity in critical areas. 25:01-30:00 (Historical Roots of Patents) Description: Kinsella traces patents to 15th-century Venetian monopolies and the 1623 Statute of Monopolies, arguing they were state privileges, not market-driven (25:01-27:50). He criticizes the patent system’s complexity and cost, which favor large corporations over innovators (27:51-30:00). Summary: The statist origins of patents are exposed, reinforcing their incompatibility with free-market principles and their inefficiency in practice. 30:01-35:00 (Patents vs. Free Market Innovation) Description: Kinsella argues that innovation thrives without patents, citing industries like fashion and software where competition drives progress (30:01-32:30). He notes that patents often protect trivial inventions, clogging the system and diverting resources (32:31-35:00). Summary: This block contrasts the free market’s ability to innovate with the patent system’s inefficiencies, strengthening the case against vaccine patents. 35:01-40:00 (Vaccine Patents and Global Access) Description: Kinsella focuses on vaccine patents, arguing they limit production by granting monopolies to a few firms, delaying global access (35:01-37:50). He proposes that abolishing patents would allow more manufacturers to produce vaccines, citing historical examples of patent-free innovation (37:51-40:00). Summary: The vaccine patent issue is directly addressed, showing how IP restricts access and how a patent-free market could solve this problem. 40:01-45:00 (Alternatives to Patents) Description: Kinsella discusses alternatives like trade secrets, which don’t require state enforcement, and market incentives like first-mover advantage (40:01-42:30). He argues that vaccine development would continue without patents, driven by demand and competition (42:31-45:00). Summary: Practical alternatives to patents are explored, reinforcing that innovation doesn’t depend on IP, even for complex products like vaccines. 45:01-50:00 (Q&A: Trade Secrets and Morality) Description: In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses whether trade secrets are a better alternative, clarifying that they don’t restrict others’ use of ideas (45:01-47:30). He responds to a question on IP’s morality, arguing it’s theft of property rights from original owners (47:31-50:00).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 340. "Watch as Benjamin Politics, Bleu Politics and Mencius Kuang interview well renowned economist Stephan Kinsella" (Jan. 12, 2021) Youtube: https://youtu.be/WUmObXbAVTA Original: https://youtu.be/Z3kcgDPM5BE

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 339. This is an audio version of my Foreword to Chase Rachels' A Spontaneous Order, narrated by Graham Wright. https://youtu.be/aRSLyEukURs

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 338. Update: See also KOL463 | Contracts, Usury, Fractional-Reserve Banking with André Simoni  and this Grok analysis of various problems with smart contracts including the fact that most loans are unsecured. From Human Action Podcast Ep. 308, "Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty with Stephan Kinsella" (May 27, 2021), with Jeff Deist, discussing Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty, chapters 9, 13, 19, et pass. (PDF). Shownotes: Lawyer and legal theorist Stephan Kinsella joins the show as we dive into Part II of Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty, grappling with the foundational issues of crime, proportionality, and contract. When is property justly held? When may injuries to a person or property be addressed with force, and how much force? How do we deal with one another contractually, in terms of promises and expectation? How do we resolve disputes privately? Rothbard presents a remarkable exposition of a theory of liberty, a normative justification for laissez-faire which was sorely lacking. Kinsella does a remarkable job of explaining Rothbard's concepts with force and clarity, so you won't want to miss this episode! Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/AkEdMTDrPfY Raw video (unedited): Related Links Rothbard on the “Original Sin” in Land Titles: 1969 vs. 1974 (Nov. 5, 2014) KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights, 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 607-45 (1997) Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters: The Rothbard-Evers Title-Transfer Theory of Contract Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts… KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery   TRANSCRIPT Rothbard on Punishment, Property, and Contract Stephan Kinsella with Jeff Deist The Human Action Podcast, Mises Institute May 27, 2021   00:00:08 JEFF DEIST: Kinsella, you ready, Freddy? 00:00:09 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m ready.  I guess I can take my mask off. 00:00:12 JEFF DEIST: What is it?  I can’t see.  What’s it got on it? 00:00:16 STEPHAN KINSELLA: V for Vendetta. 00:00:17 JEFF DEIST: Oh yeah, yeah. 00:00:19 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I got it backwards.  That’s why. 00:00:21 00:00:24 JEFF DEIST: I love that movie.  I like Stephen Fry generally, and it’s got a very young, cute Natalie Portman. 00:00:30 STEPHAN KINSELLA: She had her day. 00:00:31 JEFF DEIST: Before she was in all those – I think she was in Star Wars movies at some point. 00:00:35 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yep. 00:00:37 JEFF DEIST: And then she became sort of a Hillary person. 00:00:41 STEPHAN KINSELLA: True. 00:00:42 JEFF DEIST: All right, we good, Clay? 00:00:44 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back once again to the Human Action podcast.  If you have been following along—you should be following along—you’ll know that we’ve been working our way through some various Rothbard texts in the past few weeks.  And at some point we announced that we are going to tackle The Ethics of Liberty, which, after Man, Economy, and State might be the most treatise-like or full-length work of Rothbard’s for our purposes. 00:01:09 And we started the analysis of this book last week with Dr. Walter Block.  We went through part one of the book, which deals in natural law.  If you haven’t seen that show, be sure and go back and take a look because it’s got a lot of Walter Blockisms, and we wrestled with a lot of things conceptually in that show.  But part two of the book where Rothbard lays out a theory of liberty is really the meat of it. 00:01:32 And I thought there would be nobody better for our purposes this week than our friend, Stephan Kinsella who is, of course, someone most of you probably already know or are familiar with.  He’s not just an IP lawyer.  Of course he’s written the definitive text, Against Intellectual Property.  But he’s also written quite a bit about libertarian law more generally, the idea of when is force permissible, what is proportionality, what is contract, what is property, all of these things we wrestle with. 00:01:57 And Stephan, I guess by way of welcome, it’s interesting to me that Rothbard is writing this book in the’70s, comes out around ’82.  I mean you think all this stuff would have been settled by 1500 or so.  I mean we’re still talking about this stuff in the ‘80s.  And now we’re talking about it in the 2020s. 00:02:14 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, and in a way, Rothbard was – he was lucky that he came in at the time where there was lots of low-hanging fruit.  I think that’s one reason he made so much progress, but I always feel like the libertarian movement, the modern one, really started around Ayn Rand and that crowd in the ‘50s.  So it was relatively new when Rothbard was writing in the ‘70s. 00:02:35 JEFF DEIST: Well, so his big chapter in here, “Property and Criminality,” I mean this is a very different approach I think to libertarianism than a lot of people take, and certainly a different one than the general public would conceive of.  In other words, he roots it entirely in property.  So maybe we can start with this idea.  In modern statutory law and positive law, there’s a concept of tort and there’s a concept of crime.  In the Rothbardian conception, for starters, those two things collapse into one another.  So let’s give everybody the quick and dirty of what this means. 00:03:11 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Right.  I think most people think of different branches of law.  There’s contract.  There’s property.  There’s family law, international law, domestic law.  But really there’s private law and civil law, tort law, and crime, so they’re all treated differently.  And of course in the modern conception, crime is considered – a tort is when someone commits an offense against someone else.  And in libertarian terms, it’s basically trespass, which means using their property or their resource without their permission.  So that’s an offensive touching, like a battery, assault and battery, using their land or stealing their car. 00:03:46 Those are all types of torts.  But they’re also – some of those are considered crimes, and in our current system, the statist system we have, the victim is the state, which is why, when you have a crime, it’s the state versus O.J. Simpson, which is why Ron Goldman’s family could sue O.J. Simpson separately in a civil trial.  So there’s different standards of proof.  There’s preponderance of the evidence for a civil trial, that is, to prove that someone harmed you and owes you damages.  So you have to prove that more likely than not. 00:04:17 But if you convict someone of a crime, which is against the state, you have to prove by – beyond a reasonable doubt.  So there are different standards, and people have sought to collapse law into one thing, sort of like mathematicians and scientists – I mean physicists search for the grand unified theory to unify quantum theory and relativity.  So we seek to simply and unify these things, and Rothbard’s idea is that really it’s all tort.  And of course the state shouldn’t even exist and shouldn’t be the plaintiff or the prosecutor in a criminal action.  The victim should be the one that is able to seek restitution. 00:04:59 JEFF DEIST: So when we think of torts, I guess we think of a civil wrong other than a breach of contract for which the law provides some kind of remedy.  And that’s become an entire field of law, and of course there’s personal injury, which is a huge source of income for a lot of lawyers.  How radical do you think this was?  I mean in 1982 when this book comes out, if we say that, for example, as Rothbard says, all property is really private. 00:05:31 There’s no – the distinction isn’t public versus private property.  The distinction is whether there’s public or private actors controlling it.  And that at the end of the day, control is the most important right in the bundle of sticks that makes up a property.  So I mean do you buy this, this idea that private versus public is not the distinction? 00:05:52 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, yeah, and I think it was really radical at the time.  I think that a lot of things we read now seem tame because we’re so used to it.  I remember reading something by – Lew Rockwell had written something in – I think it was in the Hoppe Festschrift from just 11 or 12 years ago.  And he mentioned one splash Hans Hoppe made about maybe 10, 15 years before that was when he was critiquing the US Constitution and how it was a centralization.  It wasn’t really – the Constitution is not about protecting rights.  And he said something like you could hear a pin drop in the audience, so everyone was stunned by that. 00:06:31 That was a little boldly radical to say before an American audience, even libertarians, to criticize the Constitution and the alleged minimal state nature of the original founding, which is all nonsense.  But now that seemed like, oh yeah, we take that for granted, or at least it’s not – it doesn’t shock people to say that now.  So I think a lot of this stuff was more pioneering than we give it credit for because it seems so – not tame but seems obvious to us now. 00:07:00 I do think it was radical in part because even for libertarians to hear that it was radical because the common view is that the common law is the thing.  And also legislation is the primary source of law that can supersede the private common law, and even libertarians seem to have this view.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 190-2. Also podcast as PFP145. In 2015 I delivered this talk: “On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, Who Would Pick The Cotton?” at the Property and Freedom Society, 10th Annual Meeting, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 13, 2015), which is here: KOL190 | On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (PFS 2015). This is the subsequent panel discussion with Q&A from the speakers for that day, to-wit: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, David Dürr, Stephan Kinsella, Frank van Dun, Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple). Transcript below. Panel discussion video: TRANSCRIPT Panel Discussion, Q&A: Hoppe, Dürr, Kinsella, van Dun, Daniels (PFS 2015) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, David Dürr, Stephan Kinsella, Frank van Dun, Anthony Daniels Property and Freedom Society, 10th Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 13, 2015) 00:00:23 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: Somebody approached me with a wish – it was a question, if email addresses would like to be shared.  I did not want to do anything without the people’s permission, so there will be a list at the front desk where you can maybe – the name list of all the participants where you can either write your email address in there or not if you prefer not to make your email address known to others.  So whoever is interested, please take advantage of the opportunity, and David Durr wanted to make a brief announcement too.  Give the microphone. 00:01:17 DAVID DÜRR: Maybe first concerning also the email address, I was asked by some of you whether I could send you these slides of this morning so you could look at it closer with all the writings.  So my email address to just give it to you is D-U-E, double R at swisslegal in one word, swisslegal.  This is the name of our law group, dot C-H.  And then may I add this?  Some people ask me whether what I gave in the speech is also somewhere written in an article.  So there are not long and thick books of me yet on this matter.  I do have two books here.  They are not as sophisticated and scientific as the one of Hans.  And namely they are not so English.  They are German. 00:02:27 One is (indiscernible_00:02:29) which means state opera.  Switzerland, you know, the state as a big opera.  It’s the state house actually as opera house, and the subtitle is Few Stars, Many Startists.  So this is one – I just have one copy of each if you want to look at this, those who read English, or if you want to buy it or order it, so it’s here.  The second one is I have a regular column in a newspaper in Switzerland, and these are sort of anarchic – anarchist columns, and the collection of this is in another book.  They are always on Fridays in that newspaper, so it’s “Das Wort zum Freitag,” the world to the Friday, not to the Sunday as usual, to the Friday, so this is the second book.  Thank you. 00:03:31 Q: Which newspaper is it?  Which newspaper? 00:03:33 DAVID DÜRR: It’s called Basler Zeitung.  It’s a – people say it’s a right-wing newspaper.  They are very open in that they have, through all parties, columnists, but I like the newspaper as such, but I’m very independent.  I had one column once when I compared IS or ISIS with US.  I said, well, actually it’s about the same thing.  US is just bigger, and that gave huge protests from the newspaper itself.  And then this gave me an opportunity just to put one on the top because right afterwards these CIA reports came up about torture practices.  That was a wonderful example to insist on it anymore. 00:04:41 00:04:49 Q: Okay.  My question is for Stephan Kinsella.  It’s a question, not an argument.  What is the case for private photos and pictures shared over the internet on Facebook and someone else is using it?  What is the argumental basis on that from the IP perspective? 00:05:13 STEPHAN KINSELLA: What’s the justification for using someone else’s? 00:05:15 Q: Using, or do they need our permission, without permission?  What is the case for… 00:05:20 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Do you mean under current law or under libertarian system? 00:05:23 Q: Under – both. 00:05:24 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, under current law, copyrights – photographs are owned by the photographer, and if you put it online you still own the copyright, but you’re giving a license for people to use it for limited purposes like doing it on their browser.  If you use it beyond that, unless there’s a creative common license attached to it, you could be sued.  And the perverse aspect of copyright – let’s suppose you’re on vacation and you hand your iPhone to a stranger and he takes a picture of your family.  He owns the copyright but you don’t know who he is, so you have this great picture, and you may be infringing his copyright when you put it on your Apple TV. 00:06:02 And there’s other perverse aspects of copyright.  There are cases where there’s – someone takes a photograph.  They have a copyright in the photograph, and it becomes a best-selling print or something like that.  And someone else will go to the same location and recreate the photo by taking their own photograph, and they can be sued by the owner of the first copyright for taking a photograph in that location.  Under libertarian law, there would be no property rights whatsoever in information at all. 00:06:32 Information is not an ownable thing.  Information is the impatterning of an owned thing, a physical material resource.  Information is never free-floating.  It’s always the impatterning of a substrate: your brain, electromagnetic waves, a CD-ROM, a USB drive, a hard drive on a computer.  And those things are already owned by someone according to the principles Professor Hoppe referred to earlier.  The owner of the thing—I own this physical object.  It’s structured in a certain way, which is the information.  I don’t own the information and the phone.  I own the phone and the feature – it has certain features. 00:07:06 This phone has a weight.  It has an age.  It doesn’t mean I own the age of the phone.  If I did own the age of the phone, I would own lots of other phones in the world that were made on the same day you see.  So the problem with owning an aspect of a thing that you own is it’s a universal that applies to any number of instances in the world.  And to own that universal feature of the thing would instantly give you ownership claims over other material resources in the world that other people have claims to.  This is the very problem with IP.  So if you put a photograph online in a free society, then you have to take the risk that other people might look at it and use it. 00:07:44 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: On intellectual property rights, a funny movement – you reported about it on your website where people – some alleged Austrians from Vienna, Mrs. What’s-Her-Name from the Hayek Institute, Barbara Kolm.  She wants to defend physical and intellectual property rights at the same time.  It never occurred to her that that is an absolute impossibility.  To give you an example, I whistle a song.  You hear the song, and you copy it.  You whistle the same melody. [Update: See excerpt on Kolm here.] 00:08:34 If intellectual property rights exist, of course I would be able to then sue you for having whistled the same song without having received my permission.  But that means that I thereby acquire property rights over your own body, that I am then an owner of your vocal chords and whatever it is.  And that shows quite clearly that either physical property rights exist or intellectual property rights exist, but both of these things cannot exist simultaneously.  So it’s simply a contradiction. 00:09:28 STEPHAN KINSELLA: And an actual illustration of that is the “Happy Birthday” song, which is in litigation right now.  This is literally true.  Waiters in restaurants in the US sing a different song because they may be sued for singing the one that’s in the movies, which movie studios have to pay licensing fees for.  It’s another way IP would help movie studios.  Their costs would go down.  I want to read something Hans wrote in 19 – Hans said in 1988 on a panel with Rothbard and David Gordon and Leland Yeager.  And this is ’88 at the Mises Institute I assume, and an audience member said I have a question for Professor Hoppe. 00:10:07 Does the idea of personal sovereignty extend to knowledge?  Am I sovereign over my own thoughts, ideas, and theories?  And Hans said in order to have a thought you must have property rights over your body.  That doesn’t imply you own your thoughts.  The thoughts that can be used by – the thoughts can by used by anybody who is capable of understanding them.  So Hans understood this with pure praxeology 30 – almost 30 years ago. 00:10:34 00:10:38 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: Then I was still young. 00:10:40 00:10:45 Q: (indiscernible_00:10:45) First of all, I wanted to thank you for a remarkably funny talk on homicide, and I wanted to tell Professor Hoppe that it was extremely refreshing to hear what should be done with politicians.  Now, having said that, don’t you think that when you say a few people have asked you who is the best person you’ve known, and several – and many people have asked you who is the worst person you’ve known in a way echoes the fact that the best person you may know involves a value judgment.  Whereas what we consider evil, echoes of a natural sense of law such that what we libertarians call the Non-Aggression Principle can be naturally recognized by people throughout cultures and times. 00:11:33 00:11:38 ANTHONY DANIELS: No.  I don’t think that’s true.  I think – I’m afraid I think people are just salaciously interested in evil in a way that they’re not salaciously interested in good.  And evil entertains them in a way that good doesn’t,

Stephan Kinsella, libertarian legal theorist and former patent attorney, applies praxeology to property rights and Bitcoin. The conversation covers homesteading, scarcity versus non-scarcity, private keys as access not property, Bitcoin’s mimicry of rivalrous money, consensus fragility, mining incentives, and how Bitcoin might reshape law and liberty.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 336. From April 22, 2021. "Here I interview the great Stephan Kinsella and discuss whether or not patents and intellectual property are actually a good thing. We get into philosophy, practical advice, and more." Related links: C4SIF.org Resources A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Do Business Without Intellectual Property