Intellectual “Property”

This is an article written by Nick Coughlin that was featured in the Daily Anthenaeum. It is being reposted here for the sake of WVU’s Students for Liberty. In this short article the concept of intellectual “property” is examined and dissected.

The concept of intellectual property and the “rights” surrounding intellectual property are an argument which revolves around massive amounts of power and money in our society. Take for example the legislation SOPA which faced massive opposition amongst both the people who use and the people who run social media and information websites. The website Wikipedia alone led to eight million Americans looking up and contacting their representatives. SOPA had massive support by many politicians on either side of the American political spectrum as well as massive media corporations, yet faced massive opposition by the citizenry, specifically young citizens. The specifics of the SOPA bill are not the matter being discussed, although I would urge you to learn more about it if you don’t know what it was.

The point being made here is that in this example of a battle over intellectual property it would appear that it is the powers that be who would like to support intellectual property while the people seem uninterested in this supposed protection. Before discussing further, what exactly is intellectual property and is it actually property? Intellectual property is defined as exclusive rights to any creation of the mind. So to elaborate off of this idea intellectual property is in fact an idea and not property. Arguments about which kinds of property one should protect, property is tangible and does require protection. Nothing one does can deliberately remove and idea from one’s mind (at least deliberately). Furthermore, legal action can be used in support of this idea and infringe upon somebody’s actual property.

A brilliant example of this infringement of real property rights based on intellectual property “rights” is put forward by lawyer Stephen Kinsella. He points out that had a particularly brilliant cro-magnon patented the concept of making a log cabin, then to this day only those who were allowed by the subsequent heirs would be allowed to make log cabins. To elaborate further, even if you had homesteaded land and then gathered your own logs through your own labor you would be prohibited from making a cabin. What a terribly backwards concept of justice!

Perhaps that example isn’t relevant or clear, although I believe it makes the point quite well as to what intellectual property “rights” do to actual property. Other examples are abundant and I’d encourage you to look into other anti intellectual property rights essays. One of the biggest failures of the current system is the fact that in the event of somebody only being first to develop an idea, any subsequent improvements upon the previously invented idea are considered to be infringements of the inventor’s property. The perversion of what it means to infringe on one’s property in this example is enough to make one cringe.

In conclusion what one should ponder upon is whether or not intellectual property is protecting them or their property, or if it is infringing upon their property and in what ways. When considering this realize that one could be within their home and never leave through the next few actions. Through a few keystrokes they could then download a copyrighted software. Depending on the circumstances, some amount of time later they could have the strong arm of the state pointing guns at them, threatening them with force, simply for carrying out a few non-infringing actions. Before anyone cries “but that’s the way things are” consider not whether or not that is the way the world currently works, but whether or not that is the way the world should work.