It would be interesting to discover how far a seriously critical view of
the benefits to society of the law of copyright or the expression of
doubts about the public interest in the existence of a class which makes
its living from the writing of books would have a chance of being
publicly stated in a society in which the channels of expression are so
largely controlled by people who have a vested interest in the existing
- F. A. Hayek
Intellectual property is one of the most stupid things I've ever been
forced to comply with. You can't own a pattern of words. You can own a
physical book, not every physical embodiment of a certain pattern of
words. You know what I own? My pen and paper, my keyboard and computer,
my printer and so on. And you (should) have no rights to tell me what I
can do with my property. Information is just an arrangement of objects.
The fact that you can "own" an arrangement of words comes in conflict
with the property rights of the paper that text is written on. If I own
this paper and ink, how can you have any say in the way I arrange my
Patents and copyrights are unjustifiable monopolies granted by the
Trademarks are fine and can be handled through fraud protection: If you
pretend to be someone else, you can (and should) be sued for fraud.
When you advocate for certain laws you have to ask yourself: Is it right
to use force and coercion through the state against other people? The
answer is no.
Suggested reading: Against Intellectual Property - N. Stephan Kinsella
case "$RANT" in