Column by Alex R. Knight III.
Exclusive to STR
An ongoing debate in libertarian quarters has been and is whether or not intellectual property (or IP, for short) is a concept which has any place in a free society. While honest arguments on both sides can be compelling, there also seems to be a great deal of misconception surrounding the entire topic, and my goal here is to attempt to demystify some of it, and perhaps offer a clearer picture than may have been heretofore available.
Carl Watner published an interesting piece in The Voluntaryist [3]Issue 168, “On the Ownership of Ideas,” which was too extensive to extrapolate upon here in minute detail, but in brief related the fact that there have long been two opposing camps of libertarian thought regarding IP. For the record, Carl himself professed to be of the pro-IP one, on the basis of the idea that good ideas are relatively rare and hard to come by.
I think one thing that needs to be clarified at the very outset in any discussion regarding IP, and yet, rarely is, must be the critical differentiation between the idea of “copyright,” and the idea behind “patents.”
First off, why have I used quotation marks and italics above? The answer is because, before there can be any meaningful discussion about these two forms of IP, we should certainly acknowledge that such concepts, at present, are largely creatures of the State. So much so, in fact, that we must from the very outset recognize that these practices (really just the former, but I'll get to that) would likely be implemented very differently in a stateless world than in the current statist one. In fact, it is perhaps due to no coincidence that Carl Watner also published a piece in The Voluntaryist [3] Issue 166, titled, “Copyright Before (Statutory) Copyright: A Voluntaryist Perspective on a Statist Development.”
With the recognition then that, if such practices still existed in freedom they would do so purely as a product of markets and free enterprise, we must then ask the obvious question as to whether individuals would be entitled to such protections at all. And I think here and to that end, some analogies might be in order.
It should appear obvious that the first authors of horror tales did not enjoy, nor do they now, any monopoly on the production of same. Any of us are free to follow in their footsteps – as I have done on occasion, along with many others of greater and lesser repute. Just as Ford is subject to much competition in the production of automobiles, Hewlett-Packard in the arena of computers, and McDonald's when it comes to making hamburgers. Imagine how much less advanced, yet how much more expensive, all of these products – and so many more of them – would be were any of these individuals, firms, or their heirs, able to claim exclusivity on an idea. The result, I think, would be as devastating as any kind of communism or central-planning could ever be. Progress – both scientific and economic – would be hopelessly stultified. Liberty would suffer greatly under such conditions.
But wait: Does this mean that if I publish a horror novel then, for example, anyone should be able to come along, finance the production of copies of my work on their own without any form of permission, then reap whatever profits might be had without paying me a single cent? Should anyone be able to produce an exact Ford replica, an identical Hewlett-Packard PC, a McD's burger complete with golden arches on the wrapper, and then cash in?
My answer is an emphatic no. Why? The answer is actually deceptively simple: The distinction behind the concepts of “copyright” (which might well be called something different in an open marketplace), and “patent.”
To be more direct, “patent” seeks to forever insulate the originator of an overall idea from any and all forms of competition, improvement, or innovation. Whereas “copyright” seeks only protections and exclusivity for the creator of a certain unique version of an idea. One cannot “patent,” thus, the wheel. But Good Year, Michelin, Pirelli, and a thousand or more other companies may “copyright” their modern versions of it.
Let's ponder something more esoteric. Let's suppose I invent and produce the first-ever teleport machine. (And let's also assume this occurs in an already free society in which I will have to fear no government assassination attempts). This is obviously a revolutionary technology for the world. Might I arrange to forever after be the exclusive producer of any and all such machines? Is it either wise or consistent with freedom to allow no improvements, no advances, no further innovations to teleport technology except what I authorize or am able to think of or produce myself? Or might I only have rightful ownership of the particular version of teleport machine I've made – in this case the prototype – and any I might be able to make in the future based upon my own further ideas, and my own ability and desire to continue competing in that market arena? I think it's easy to see which path is the most rational: “Copyright,” as it were, remains preferable to “patent” in virtually every conceivable scenario.
In closing, none of us can at this juncture have any real idea as to how “copyright” claims in a truly free society might be implemented and enforced. Likely, there would be several different models – each themselves perhaps “copywritten” in their own regard in some capacity. But this much is clear: The premise behind “patents,” as such, is toxic to liberty and progress, whereas we can conclude that the “copyright” concept is critical to both – now, and in the future society of liberty voluntaryists hope to create.
[4]
