Libertarianism & Intellectual Property Dr. Wayne

...But there are a lot of different libertarian perspectives.<br>

Three libertarian views on IP: Some libertarians see IP as a natural right of individuals. For them, IP is just like any other kind of property.
Some libertarians want to do away with IP altogether, seeing it as a dangerous government intervention that undermines other rights to free expression and tangible property.
Other libertarians take a consequentialist view, seeing IP as a necessary incentive for innovation. People in this camp generally support some form of IP, but think it has gone too far.<br>

Even some of the staunchest libertarian proponents of IP think it has limitations:

“If [intellectual property] were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism. It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them.” -- Ayn Rand<br>

Others don’t think all this skepticism is warranted:

“The same functional justifications that explained why it was permissible to limit liberty (which itself had to be defended) in the name of property also work to explain why it is permissible to limit other forms of liberty by the creation of intellectual property.”

“Unless there are strong intellectual property rights, free-riding will destroy innovation....The use of explicit legislation and public institutions is an added cost for intellectual property. But it seems well justified in light of the enormous technical and literary advances that would not occur in its absence.” -- Richard A. Epstein, Hoover Institution<br>

Many libertarians still aren’t sold on the property rights analogy.

“The case of taxi medallions should make clear that regulatory policies don't necessarily support free markets simply because they feature tradable property rights.”
-- Brink Lindsey, Cato Institute<br>

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

“The Congress shall have Power….To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”<br>

As an Article 1 power, adjacent to establishing post offices and punishing pirates, many libertarians recognize the constitutional roots of IP as a utilitarian government program. Indeed, Jefferson and Madison framed it as a monopoly, rather than an individual right. And expressed concerns about it going too far.<br>

The number of patents doesn’t necessarily correspond with economic growth…. “Incentives” for innovation can stop being incentives.<br>

Public choice problems with IP:

Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs have created tremendous incentives for rent-seeking.

As we’ve seen with copyright terms, and other areas of IP law, specific industries have been very successful in manipulating rules and regulations to their advantage.<br>

Through retroactive extensions, copyright terms have grown 580%, and cover a lot more than maps, books and charts. It’s hard to see a principled justification for this.<br>

“Incautious scholars cast copyright as a form of property — intellectual property, as they call it — and claim for it the same degree of respect formerly reserved for houses, cars, and other tangible forms of property. Special-interest groups leveraged that convenient error to their advantage. Observing that rights to tangible property have no time limits, for instance, lobbyists moved the law in that direction by increasing the maximum term of a U.S. copyright from 28 years — the term the Founders established in 1790 — to 120 years under present law.” -- Tom W. Bell, Chapman University<br>

Learn more:

FreedomWorks - freedomworks.org
R Street Institute - rstreet.org<br>