	Login Account Wishlist Basket Loading... Hit search button!
Mises Home Store Home Product Search Currencies About the Store New Books Feed

Human Action, The Scholar's Edition
Price: $25.00 USD

Add Human Action, The Scholar's Edition to Cart

Economics in One Lesson
Price: $12.00 USD

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View
Price: $4.00 USD

Add Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View to Cart

Human Action Study Guide
Price: $16.00 USD

Literature and the Economics of Liberty
Price: $20.00 USD

Add Literature and the Economics of Liberty to Cart

Loading Mises Store Google Search...

Home > All Books

Against Intellectual Property

Other products by Kinsella, Stephan N.

reviews

Item #:

SS362

Reg. Price:

$8.00 USD

Our Price:

$6.00 USD

Quantity:

Add to Wishlist Add to Cart

This monograph is justifiably considered a modern classic. It is by Stephan Kinsella who caused a worldwide rethinking among libertarians of the very basis of intellectual property. Mises had warned against patents, and Rothbard did too. But Kinsella goes much further to argue that the very existence of patents are contrary to a free market, and adds in here copyrights and trademarks too. They all use the state to create artificial scarcities of non-scarce goods and employ coercion in a way that is contrary to property rights and the freedom of contract.

Many people who read this essay for the first time were unprepared for the rigor of his argument, which takes time to settle in simply because it seems so shocking at first. But Kinsella makes his case with powerful logic and examples that are overwhelming in their persuasive power.

The relevance in a digital age can't be overstated. The state works with monopolistic private producers to inhibit innovation and stop the progress of technology, while using coercion against possible competitors and against consumers. Even U.S. foreign policy is profoundly affected by widespread confusions over what is legitimate and merely asserted as property. What Kinsella is calling for instead of this cartelizing system is nothing more or less than a pure free market, which he argues would not generate anything resembling what we call intellectual property today. IP, he argues, is really a state-enforced legal convention, not an extension of real ownership.

Few essays written in the last decades have caused so much fundamental rethinking. It is essential that libertarians get this issue right, and understand the arguments on all sides. Kinsella's piece here is masterful in making a case against IP that turns out to be more rigorous and thorough than any written on the left, right, or anything in between.

Read it and prepare to change your mind.

71 page, paperback, 2008

ISBN 978-1-933550-32-9

Average Rating:

(based on 13 reviews)

Showing 1 - 5 of 13 Reviews:

by Allen Lewis
on 12/21/2009

Challenges and destroys conventional wisdom

I was very skeptical about the anti-IP position before reading this book.  However, Kinsella does a masterful job of explaining the illegitimacy of "intellectual" property and how IP is wholly incompatible with private property rights.  And although he presents the utilitarian arguments, the ultimate defense of his position is not (much to the chagrin of the Rand worshipers here who probably have not read the book, despite it being available for free on mises.org) utilitarian in nature.

by Mikeikon
on 4/28/2009

Great argument, with one disagreement

The author makes a very solid, logical case against intellectual property.

However, I disagree with the author's assertion that property is justified by first occupation rather than labor. Taken to the extreme (as he so brilliantly outlines in the case of intellectual property), this principle would be disastrous. First occupation would suggest that the first man on Mars could stake his claim to the entire surface of the planet. Just walking through the woods would give me rightful ownership of the area I walked in—whatever I decided constituted the “area.” There's simply no way to logically limit ownership or create boundaries under such a system.

That said, I don't think that this point detracts from the author's argument against intellectual property. His strongest point is his assertion that property is based on scarce resources and intellectual “property” is not scarce, and that holds true no matter how you justify ownership.

by ED
on 4/26/2009

reply to posts

response to earlier posts:  Why is this book not free?

1) it is

2)Just because a creative work is not copyrighted don't mean the author must reproduce and distribute that work for free as these start to utilize tangible property and labor.

by derdaddler
on 2/16/2009

Quoting Kant

Stephan ist taking a very bold and conclusive stand against copyrights and patents.

The line of argumentation is pretty convincing build upon the concept of property being established by first occupation and scarcity of the good.

If anyone wanted to argue against the case it would probably based on the concept of property.

In the book are two German philosophers quoted, Hegel and Kant. First, I'd like to add a quote by Hegel, which says:

'Plagiarism should be a question of honour and thereby restrained.'
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (§69)
This might refer to the previous comments not to mix up credit and property.

The quote of Kant is taken from a work titled "Of the illegality of reprinting books"
In this text Kant makes the case for restricting reprint. In his opinion the book is an author's speech to the public manifested in written characters. As it is an action, nobody but the author or an publisher entitled by the author is allowed to perform this action on the author's behalf.

For all other artwork as things Kant advocates free copying without any consent from anybody. He distinguishes this kind of "opus" from the "opera" like the speech to the public.

Claiming books and music on media is an artwork performed in the very moment someone reads it would be a different storyline stressing again personal and contractual rights.

But again it would invade third parties right to use their property as they please. Any more comments on this?

by Lucas
on 2/7/2009

Excellent book. Confusion among readers...

Again, people writing reviews here confuse attribution with ownership, as in the reviews of "Against Intellectual Monopoly". The term of "intellectual property" has become so ingrained into people's minds that some are no longer able to distinguish between "giving credit" and "giving exclusive right to control the use of one's creation". So called IP is about the latter. Claiming others work as your own is simply misinformation -- a clearly immoral practice, but with negligible economic significance. Selling a book written by somebody else while making clear that it's not you who has written it is a violation of IP, if done without a legal arrangement with the copyright holder. According to Kinsella it's not morally repulsive by itself (barring the fact that breaking the law may be seen as morally repulsive even if you don't agree with the current law).

As for the book I find it rather conclusive. After one has comprehended it, it's really difficult to argue that IP is not a form of monopoly. Whether this monopoly is desirable is a different question. For a libertarian monopolies are at best suspicious.

Review and Rate this Item