Sweet potatoes on a bed of hot stones in a convenience store in Japan. Who owns the "rights" to this nifty machine?

Much like the pro-open or closed STATE borders "debate," the debate regarding "intellectual property" is essentially a moot point, in many respects.

There is no "intellectual property" and there is no "physical property," per se. There is, in the end, only private property.

Of course state-sponsored, violence-backed legislation (politician scribbles) known as "copyright law" and "patent law" are immoral because they mandate what can and cannot be done with private property not legitimately owned.

For example:

"Hey you! Don't copy that Pink Floyd album using your flash drive and/or CDRs! That's a copyright infringement!"

Or

"Don't use your raw materials to make a machine like that! That design is already patented!"

Of course, this is nothing more than state violence. As anarchists we know pretending to dictate what others "can" or "cannot" do with their own private property is immoral, illogical, and contrary to the self-ownership axiom.

However, there is nothing immoral about an individual selling an idea to another party via voluntary contract and restricting said intellectual commodity via that contract.

Bob, I will tell you how to make the machine, but I want you to keep it a secret for three years.

If Bob voluntarily agrees, there is nothing immoral, unethical, or anti-libertarian about this agreement.

The idea (machine schematic) was property and was exchanged on conditions stipulated by voluntary contractual agreement.

Now, what this is not to say is that somebody can enforce their "IP rights" against a third party. It is entirely possible that someone in the same geographical region will come up with the same machine and start freely sharing the idea. This would make the contract just described nearly impossible to effectively enforce, perhaps, but does not in any way render the contract null and void, as technically, any voluntary interaction is legitimate.

The ins and outs of enforcement are another issue, but we can see now that "IP" really is an "anti-concept" in much the same way that "civil rights" and "women's rights" are anti-concepts. At the end of the day, there are only property rights, and the axiomatic principles based upon individual self-ownership. This same idea applies to "IP."

Enjoy the vid!

(I would like to recognize Chris LeRoux for introducing me to these ideas. Thanks for debating me into a more refined view, Chris!)

~KafkA

---

Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person.)