The Man Who Owns the Press

2026-06-20 · 7,838 words · Singular Grit Substack · View on Substack

How Stephan Kinsella’s anti-IP argument quotes authorities instead of making one...

How Stephan Kinsella’s anti-IP argument quotes authorities instead of making one, mistakes physical rivalry for a complete theory of rights, and quietly hands the market to whoever already controls the machinery of reproduction

Keywords: intellectual property, copyright, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, Kinsella, Hoppe, Rothbard, property rights, scarcity, rivalry, idea–expression dichotomy, appropriability, public goods, fixed costs, marginal cost, free-riding, in rem rights, institutional facts, law and economics, Arrow, Landes and Posner, Machlup, authorship, first publication, appropriation by scale.

Abstract

Stephan Kinsella’s case against intellectual property does not argue for its central premise; it borrows it. The premise — that only rivalrous physical resources can be owned — is taken on the authority of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard and treated as settled, when it is precisely the proposition in dispute; and at least one of the borrowings is a misuse, since Rothbard, the authority enlisted, defended copyright as a legitimate market right, while the Holmes dissent quoted in support rests on a premise (”property, a creation of law”) that destroys the natural-rights framework it is meant to serve. Once the premise is examined rather than asserted, the argument fails on its own terms. It commits a straw man by abstraction (treating intellectual property as ownership of “ideas” or of “value,” when the operative legal categories protect bounded objects — original expression, claimed inventions, confidential information, source-identifying marks — and exclude ideas, methods, facts, and effort); it equivocates on “property” (denying that intangible juridical relations can attach to authorship while building its own system entirely out of intangible juridical relations — title, contract, consent, aggression, transfer, remedy, and the very norms of argumentation); it deploys a false dichotomy (physical integrity versus subjective value) that omits the real category, defined legal interests not reducible to anyone’s valuation; and the control criterion it wields against “value-rights” actually licenses copyright, because a would-be copier can determine in advance, independently of anyone’s subjective valuation, whether he is reproducing another’s work. The economic core of the matter is the one the theory cannot represent: expressive and inventive goods carry high fixed costs of creation and near-zero marginal costs of reproduction, so that in the absence of any right of exclusion the creator bears the cost of resolving uncertainty while the better-capitalised copier harvests the resolved product — a classic appropriability problem identified by Arrow and modelled by Landes and Posner. A world without authorial rights is therefore not a world of liberated competition but one in which wealthy production houses copy finished works, undersell originators who alone bore the fixed cost, flood distribution, capture derivative formats, and diversify the residual risk across many appropriated authors. That outcome is not the abolition of monopoly; it is the transfer of the market to whoever owns the press. The honest qualifications are stated rather than hidden: the empirical magnitude of under-provision is genuinely contested (Plant, Boldrin and Levine, and Machlup’s own verdict of indeterminacy are engaged, not suppressed), and some of what Hoppe and Rothbard say about value and about production-as-transformation is correct and is conceded; but neither qualification rescues Kinsella’s argument, because his conclusion is asserted a priori from a premise that is question-begging, self-undermining, and — when it touches real commerce — a recipe for appropriation by scale.

I. The method before the argument

Begin with how the piece is built, because the construction is the first defect.

Kinsella’s article on Hoppe is, in form, an anthology. It assembles passages from Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism and The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, a passage from Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State, and a one-line dissent from Justice Holmes, and binds them with connective sentences asserting that one may not own the “value” of property, only its physical integrity, and that creative labour increases wealth without generating any right. The foundational proposition — that legitimate ownership reaches only rivalrous physical objects — is never independently defended in the post. It is quoted into place. The reader is invited to treat it as established because distinguished men have said it.

This matters because that proposition is the entire question. The dispute between the defender and the critic of intellectual property is exactly the dispute over whether ownership is confined to rivalrous physical resources. To answer that dispute by citing authors who assume the confining definition is not to argue; it is to restate the conclusion in someone else’s voice. An argument earns a premise. An anthology assigns it.

Three of the borrowings deserve particular attention, because they are not merely unargued — they are misapplied.

First, Rothbard. The post enlists Rothbard’s statement that an owner has “no vested right in the value of his property, only in its physical existence.” Read in context, that sentence concerns competitive substitution: a rival who lures away your customers lowers the monetary value of your factory and commits no wrong, because he has not touched it. True, and conceded below. But the post lets Rothbard’s authority bleed from that narrow and correct point onto the broad anti-IP conclusion — and on the broad conclusion Rothbard is a witness for the other side. In the very same treatise, Rothbard defended copyright and attacked only patents, holding that copyright is a logical attribute of property right on the free market, while patent is a monopoly invasion of that right. He endorsed a “common-law copyright” reaching both books and inventions. One may think Rothbard’s contractual theory of copyright inadequate — it is, as we will see, vulnerable on third parties — but one may not quote him against copyright. The authority invoked for the conclusion held the opposite of the conclusion.

Second, Holmes. The post closes with the line from his dissent in International News Service v. Associated Press (1918): “Property, a creation of law, does not arise from value.” Two problems. It is a dissent; the majority recognised a quasi-property interest in the fruits of the wire service’s labour and enjoined the competitor. And the half-sentence relied upon contains a premise — property is a creation of law — that is fatal to the natural-rights edifice the post is defending. If property is whatever the legal order constitutes as property, then the legal order’s constitution of copyright is property on identical footing. A natural-law abolitionist cannot lean on a legal positivist’s epigram without sawing through the branch.

Third, Hoppe’s value argument itself, which supplies the post’s intellectual spine and which we take up directly in Part IV. Its conclusion is sound and uncontested; its relevance to intellectual property is nil, because it refutes a claim no serious proponent of intellectual property makes.

So the post’s method is: borrow a contested premise from authority; misread one authority who in fact disagrees; quote a second whose own words undercut the framework; and rest the spine on a third argument aimed at a target that is not there. None of that is yet a refutation on the merits. It is a description of why the merits were never reached. We now reach them.

A note on fairness, since this essay will insist on it throughout. Kinsella’s longer monograph, Against Intellectual Property (2001), is a genuine argued text, not an anthology, and it does confront the economic case head-on — it states the public-goods and free-rider argument accurately and then rejects the entire consequentialist frame on principled grounds. The charge of arguing-by-borrowed-authority is levelled at the post under examination, which is what we were asked to refute. The deeper claims of the monograph — the scarcity premise and the deontological objection that intellectual property is force against people using their own physical property — are addressed on their strongest form below, not dodged.

II. The debate is not about owning ideas

The opening move of nearly every anti-IP argument is to reduce intellectual property to the ownership of ideas, because once that reduction is granted the rest is downhill. No one owns the idea of a chair, or of love, or of a detective story, or of a payment network. Therefore — the argument runs — intellectual property is metaphysical extravagance.

It is theatre, and it survives only by refusing to read the statutes it condemns.

Intellectual property is not, and has never been, the ownership of ideas. Every operative category is defined precisely to exclude the floating abstraction the caricature attacks.

Copyright protects expression and withholds protection from ideas. The United States Code says so in terms: protection extends to original works of authorship, and in no case to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery” (17 U.S.C. § 102). This is not a local American quirk. The principle is written into the international architecture. The WIPO Copyright Treaty provides that copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such, and Article 9.2 of the TRIPS Agreement says the identical thing. English law is the same: copyright subsists under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and as the Court of Appeal restated in the Da Vinci Code litigation, Baigent v The Random House Group (2007), copyright does not subsist in ideas; it protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

The distinction is old and judicially foundational, not a modern patch. In Baker v. Selden (1879), the Supreme Court held that copyright in a book explaining a bookkeeping system gave the author no exclusive right in the system itself; the method, as opposed to the prose describing it, was free to all, and could be captured if at all only by patent. The exclusive right attached to the expression; the idea ran free.

Patent law likewise does not protect ideas. It protects a claimed invention — a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof (35 U.S.C. § 101) — and only after the applicant satisfies novelty, non-obviousness, utility, and the disclosure requirement, for a bounded term. A vague thought claims nothing and receives nothing.

Trade-secret law protects neither ideas nor value as such, but specified information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and that is the subject of reasonable measures to keep it secret, with liability tied to improper acquisition, disclosure, or use (18 U.S.C. § 1839). Lose the secrecy and you lose the right. Reach the same information honestly and you owe nothing.

Trademark protects a word, name, symbol, or device used to identify and distinguish goods and to indicate their source (15 U.S.C. § 1127) — source identity and goodwill, the prevention of consumer confusion — not “value,” and not language as such.

None of these gives anyone ownership of an idea in the broad, conversational sense the caricature requires. The author does not say “I own sadness”; he says “I wrote this novel.” The engineer does not say “I own motion”; she says “I disclosed this mechanism.” The merchant does not say “I own these words”; she says “this mark identifies my goods.” The anti-IP argument is rhetorically powerful exactly in proportion to its willingness to ignore this, because it must collapse expression into idea, invention into information, information into pattern, and pattern into a non-rivalrous abstraction, and then pronounce the abstraction unownable. That is not analysis of intellectual property. It is the substitution of a cartoon for the subject.

III. The value straw man

The Hoppe passage that anchors the post frames the issue as physical integrity versus value. You do not own the value of your property, because value is conferred by the changing valuations of others, over which you have no control. If a competitor opens a better restaurant and your custom falls, no right of yours is violated. If fashion turns and your stock is worthless, no one has robbed you. All of that is correct. It is also beside the point.

Intellectual property is not a property right in value. No serious proponent asserts that an author owns public taste, or that an inventor owns the profit he hoped for, or that a studio owns attention. Value is not the object of the right. Value is the consequence of the protected object. The author’s right is in the expression; the inventor’s in the claimed invention; the secret-holder’s in the confidential information; the mark-holder’s in source-identifying goodwill. Value is the reason the right is worth having. It is not the thing owned. The post repeatedly trades on the slide from “you cannot own value” to “you cannot own the thing whose value you are trying to protect,” and the slide is the whole trick.

The decisive illustration is the case the law has already decided. In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985), a magazine obtained the unpublished manuscript of President Ford’s memoirs and rushed roughly three hundred words of his account of the Nixon pardon into print, timed to scoop the authorised serialisation that Time had paid for. Time cancelled. The Supreme Court held this was not fair use: by appropriating the unpublished expression, the magazine had, in the Court’s words, effectively arrogated to itself the right of first publication, an important marketable subsidiary right. Observe what the wrong was not. Ford still had his manuscript. Harper & Row still had every word. Nothing physical had vanished. The loss was the appropriation of a specific, bounded, commercially decisive interest — the timing and exclusivity of first publication — which the copier could capture precisely because expression is reproducible. “You still have it” was true and irrelevant, which is the point.

Generalise the structure and the slogan collapses everywhere it is deployed. If a trade secret is leaked, the owner still knows it. If source code is copied, the developer still has the repository. If confidential bid data is disclosed, the firm still knows its numbers. If a manuscript is pirated, the author still holds the file. In each case the dispossession is not of the physical token but of control, exclusivity, secrecy, priority, timing, and the recoverability of organised investment. The landowner does not own “value” either; yet when a stranger builds an unauthorised road across his field we do not dismiss the trespass on the ground that market prices are subjective. The chattel owner does not own “value”; yet when a stranger takes his machine for a weekend and returns it we do not say the conversion is illusory because it left the metal intact. The object of the right is control; value is merely the evidence that control is worth contesting. Shout “value” at copyright and the entire apparatus is supposed to vanish. It does not vanish; it was never there.

IV. The equivocation on “property,” and the intangibles the theory cannot do without

Here is the deepest defect, and the one the post never confronts: its theory of rights is built, from the foundation up, out of exactly the kind of intangible it forbids others to own.

The argument depends on treating “property” as physical control over matter. But rights are not matter, and the system Kinsella defends is a system of rights. Consider its own vocabulary: ownership, title, contract, consent, aggression, transfer, homesteading, the boundary of a parcel, the claim, the remedy, liability, restitution, the right to exclude. Not one of these is a physical object. A deed is paper; the title is not the paper. A signature is ink; consent is not the ink. A fence is timber; the boundary is not reducible to the timber. A contract is a sheet of words; the obligation is not the cellulose. These are, in John Searle’s phrase, institutional facts — status functions that exist because a community of persons recognises and enforces them, not because they are inscribed on the physical world. They are non-rivalrous, non-physical, socially instituted normative relations. They are, in short, precisely what the post says cannot ground a right when the protected interest happens to be expression, invention, secrecy, or a mark.

The selectivity is the contradiction. The argument does not reject intangible rights. It accepts an entire apparatus of them whenever they protect land and chattels, and rejects them only when they protect creators. Title binds strangers; the post is content. Contract obligates a promisor who handed over no atom; the post is content. The homestead boundary is a normative line no one can see; the post is content. But let the same kind of bounded, enforceable, transferable normative relation attach to a novel or a mechanism and suddenly the theorist becomes a crude materialist who can recognise only what he can stub his toe against. That is not a principle. It is a preference wearing the costume of a principle.

The point becomes inescapable at the deepest layer. The post’s spine is Hoppe’s argument that one cannot own value because, while you control whether your acts change the physical properties of another’s thing, you do not control whether they change its value; a right whose boundary you cannot ascertain in advance is no right, since you would have to “interrogate the entire world population” before acting. Set aside that this argument, even if sound, refutes only ownership-of-market-price and is silent against ownership-of-a-bounded-expression. Notice what the argument is made of. It is the argumentation-ethics manoeuvre: to argue at all, Hoppe says, one must presuppose objective borders recognisable by everyone independently of subjective valuation, and the very act of arguing therefore proves those borders exist. But “the presuppositions of rational discourse” are an intangible, non-rivalrous, socially-constituted normative order. The entire metaethical foundation of the anti-IP position is the kind of non-physical, non-scarce, instituted thing the position declares cannot ground a right. A framework whose floor is made of the material it has outlawed cannot use the outlawing as a load-bearing wall.

And the ascertainability criterion — the very test Hoppe wields to kill value-rights — turns out to vindicate copyright. The objection to value-rights was that you cannot know, in advance, whether your act will cross the line, because the line depends on others’ valuations. Copyright has no such defect. A would-be copier can determine, in advance, with certainty, and in complete ignorance of anyone’s subjective valuation, whether the thing he is about to reproduce is another’s authored work. He does not poll the population. He checks whether he is copying. The boundary of a copyright is at least as objectively ascertainable as the boundary of a field — arguably more so, since the field’s edge is itself a contested normative construction (as the law of nuisance, trespass, and pollution thresholds attests, the line between a “physical invasion” and a mere externality is drawn by the legal order, not read off nature). The criterion offered to destroy intellectual property, applied honestly, protects it.

V. The false dichotomy and the missing third category

Hoppe’s value passage ends with a flourish: either the diminution of another’s property value is an actionable wrong — in which case all competition is aggression, which is absurd — or it is not, in which case there can be no right against it; “a third possibility does not exist.”

A third possibility exists, and the dichotomy survives only by suppressing it.

The argument treats all effects on another’s economic position as a single undifferentiated category called “value.” But the category is not single. There is competition by substitution — building a better or cheaper rival, inventing a superior product, persuading customers to switch — which lowers a competitor’s value and is no wrong, and which copyright and patent do not touch. And there is appropriation by reproduction — copying the specific expressive or inventive artifact another produced — which is the only thing intellectual property actually addresses. These are different acts with different objects, and the difference does not turn on “value” at all. The first competes against a producer’s product; the second reproduces that very product. Disaggregate them and Hoppe’s dilemma dissolves: one may consistently hold that there is no right against truthful, substitutive value-reduction and a right against the reproduction of one’s bounded work, on grounds that never mention subjective valuation. The “third possibility” the post declares non-existent is the category every intellectual-property system has always occupied: defined legal interests that are not reducible to anyone’s valuation. Copyright is not “my valuation of my book”; it is the protected expression. A patent is not “my valuation of my machine”; it is the claimed invention. The dichotomy is exhaustive only if you first delete the answer.

VI. Creation is not “mere rearrangement” — and copyright never claimed otherwise

A further stock move holds that creation generates no property because all production merely rearranges matter already owned; the author rearranges words, the engineer components, the chemist molecules, and since no one creates matter from nothing, no new right can arise. Hoppe and Rothbard are right that production is transformation rather than creation ex nihilo, and the point is worth conceding cleanly: mixing your labour with a thing you already own yields you a more valuable configuration of what you owned, not a fresh title conjured by the labour itself. Carve your stone into a statue and you own the statue because you owned the stone, not because creativity is a title-generating force.

The trouble is the inference, which is a non-sequitur in two directions.

First, “everything is rearrangement” proves too much. A house is rearranged timber and stone and steel; a microprocessor is rearranged silicon; a watch is rearranged metal and motion. If rearrangement defeated property, most of the economy would dissolve into dust. The economic question was never whether matter was rearranged. It is whether labour, judgment, risk, capital, and organisation produced a new and bounded good — and a finished book, a working mechanism, a maintained program, a verified database manifestly is one. A topic is not a book. “Write about Rome” is not Gibbon. “Write about whales” is not Melville. The topic is raw possibility; the book is the produced good, with structure, sequence, selection, evidence, prose, and a marketable form, and it converts an open field into a consumable work at real cost.

Second — and this is the part the post never registers — copyright does not in fact rest on the labour-desert theory the post is busy refuting. It rests on originality, and it has explicitly rejected reward-for-effort. In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991), the Supreme Court held that a telephone directory, however laborious its compilation, was not copyrightable, because facts are not original to anyone and effort is not the touchstone. The Court repudiated the “sweat of the brow” doctrine outright: originality, not “sweat of the brow,” is the touchstone of copyright protection, and the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of knowledge, not to reward labour as such. So when the post attacks intellectual property as a confused labour-theory of value applied to ideas, it is attacking a theory copyright disclaimed in 1991. Hoppe’s correct observation that labour alone is not a source of title is fired at a target that conceded the ground a generation ago. The error is doubled: the labour theory is rejected, and copyright never asserted it. What copyright protects is not the sweat but the original expression — a bounded, identifiable, transferable, infringeable object — and Feist is the proof that the category is disciplined enough to throw out the very effort-claims the post pretends are its essence.

VII. The economics the theory cannot represent

Now the matter the framework is constitutionally unable to see, because its ontology forbids it from treating production cost as relevant to rights: the appropriability problem.

Expressive and inventive goods characteristically combine high fixed costs of creation with low marginal costs of reproduction. The author spends months or years; the publisher pays editors, designers, lawyers, marketers, printers, distributors; the software firm pays developers, testers, security engineers, documentation teams; the pharmaceutical firm funds research, trials, and regulatory compliance. Once the good exists, copying it is cheap, and in digital form the marginal cost of an additional copy approaches zero. This is the textbook public-good structure of information, and it is the reason the economics of intellectual property is a serious field rather than a slogan.

Kenneth Arrow stated the core in 1962. The competitive market under-invests in the production of knowledge for three linked reasons — increasing returns, inappropriability, and uncertainty — and inappropriability is the decisive one: because information can be used without being used up, and revealed without being surrendered, its producer cannot capture its social value. Arrow named the paradox at the centre: the value of a piece of information cannot be judged by a buyer until he has it, but once he has it he has no need to pay. Sell the information by disclosing it and you have given it away; withhold it and you cannot sell it. A producer facing that structure, with no right of exclusion, under-produces relative to the social optimum.

Landes and Posner translated the point into the law of copyright in 1989. The distinguishing feature of intellectual property, they wrote, is its public-good aspect: the cost of creating the work is high, the cost of reproducing it low, and if the creator’s copies are priced near the marginal cost of reproduction, his total revenue may not cover the cost of creation — so copyright trades the costs of limiting access against the benefit of preserving an incentive to create the work in the first place. State the same logic as a ledger. Let C be the cost of creation, M the marginal cost of a copy, R the revenue a finished work can earn, and E the availability of exclusion. The originator’s expected profit is roughly R(E) − C; the copier’s is roughly R′ − M. Where M is near zero and C is substantial, and where E is absent, the copier’s position is structurally superior to the originator’s: the copier waits until the originator has borne C and resolved the uncertainty, then reproduces the resolved product at M and competes the price toward M, at which the originator cannot recover C. The asymmetry is not moral panic. It is arithmetic.

The crucial conceptual error the post commits — and it is fatal — is to read the low reproduction cost as proof that there is no protectable production cost. A book may be cheap to copy after it exists and expensive to create before it exists; an invention cheap to imitate after disclosure and expensive to discover before it; a database cheap to scrape after compilation and expensive to assemble before it. The copier always enters after the uncertainty has been resolved; the creator always acts before. To treat the cheapness of the copy as dispositive is to confuse the cost of reproduction with the cost of production. Those are different magnitudes, and the gap between them is the economic heart of the whole subject.

VIII. The honest qualifications, stated rather than hidden

A polemic that suppressed the strongest contrary evidence would be committing, against its readers, exactly the offence it charges against Kinsella. So the qualifications are placed in the open.

The empirical magnitude of under-provision is genuinely contested, and the contest is not frivolous. As early as 1934, Arnold Plant argued that copyright was less necessary than its defenders supposed, observing that authors are moved by much besides royalties and that nineteenth-century American publishers profited handsomely while freely reprinting uncopyrighted British works; he conceded only that some authors write books because copyright exists, and a greater variety of books is published. Michele Boldrin and David Levine, in Against Intellectual Monopoly (2008) and related work, mount a comprehensive economic case that intellectual property functions as a costly and dangerous monopoly rather than a necessary spur, and that competitive returns to first-mover advantage and complementary sales often suffice. And the most thorough mid-century economic review, Fritz Machlup’s 1958 study for the United States Senate, reached a verdict of candid indeterminacy: no economist, on present knowledge, could say whether the patent system confers a net benefit or a net loss; if we had no patent system it would be irresponsible to recommend instituting one, and since we have long had one it would be irresponsible to recommend abolishing it.

Two things follow, and they cut in a single direction.

First, Machlup’s indeterminacy is far more damaging to Kinsella than to the defender of intellectual property, because Kinsella’s posture is confident abolition. If the careful economist cannot say whether the system is net-beneficial, then no one can claim its abolition is economically costless or obviously efficient. Indeterminacy is fatal to confidence, and the confidence here is all on the abolitionist side. The honest defender of intellectual property need claim only that there is a real appropriability problem that the institution addresses imperfectly; the abolitionist must claim that dismantling the institution is safe, and the evidence does not license that claim.

Second — and this is the cleaner point — Kinsella’s central argument does not rest on the empirics at all, and so cannot be saved by them. His deontological claim is that intellectual property is illegitimate in principle, because enforcing it means using force against people who are using their own physical property (their presses, their paper, their machines) in ways that invade no one physically. On that view the wealth consequences are simply irrelevant: rights trump utility, and even a regime that demonstrably increased social wealth would be unjust if it violated physical-property rights. Very well — then the refutation must be, and has been, at the level of the premise: the scarcity-only theory of legitimate ownership is a stipulative definition, not a demonstrated truth; it is self-undermining, because the theory’s own foundations are intangible normative relations; and it does not even demarcate the cases it wants, because “physical invasion” is itself a normative construction. The empirics are not the load-bearing objection. They enter for a different and narrower purpose, which is the subject of the next two parts: to show what Kinsella’s prescription actually produces in the world, and thereby to answer the rhetorical claim — the one piece of consequentialism the abolitionist does smuggle in — that abolition amounts to liberty.

And the concession to Hoppe and Rothbard is made without reservation, because a fair argument states what its opponents get right. Value is not ownable, and competition that lowers it is no wrong: conceded. Production is transformation rather than creation from nothing, and labour alone is not a source of title: conceded. Intellectual property, as actually administered, frequently overreaches — copyright terms are too long, many patents should never have issued, enforcement is often abusive: conceded, and urged. None of these concessions reaches the conclusion, because the conclusion was derived from a premise that is false, not from observations that are true.

IX. The demonstration: a world without authorial rights

Run the world the post recommends, and watch what happens to a working market.

An unknown author spends four years on a serious work of non-fiction. It required travel, archival access, interviews, expert review, subscriptions, editing, indexing, typesetting, and design. The author has no celebrity brand and no independent distribution channel. The value is in the book.

Before publication, a large production house obtains a copy. In Kinsella’s world there is no copyright, so there is no claim to make. The house breaks into nothing; it uses its own scanners, its own servers, its own presses, its own warehouses, its own advertising accounts. It produces a polished edition, buys distribution, lists the work across every platform, prices it below the originator, commissions an audiobook with hired narrators, and generates summaries, classroom editions, and translations. The author objects. The house replies, with perfect fidelity to the theory: “You still have your manuscript. We used our own property. We copied only non-rivalrous information. You do not own value.” Under the theory, and absent a contract or a physical trespass, that is the end of the matter.

The commercial injury, however, is total and specific, and the law has already named it. This is Harper & Row with the protection switched off. The interest destroyed is the right of first publication — “an important marketable subsidiary right,” in the Court’s phrase — together with the author’s pricing power, his licensing options, his bargaining position, and his capacity to recover the fixed cost C. The house bore none of C. It enters after the uncertainty is resolved, reproduces the resolved product at M, and undersells the only party who paid to create the market. “You still have it” pays no editor, no researcher, no printer, and no rent.

Now iterate across the economy, because the structure is general. A novelist releases a book; a platform clones a cheaper edition. A historian publishes a specialist study; a larger house repackages it. An educational author writes a textbook; a corporation bundles a copy with its software. A translator produces a translation at the cost of months; a distributor copies it on release. A composer records music; a service copies and monetises it. A photographer builds an archive; an agency scrapes and resells it. A developer ships a tool; a larger firm folds a clone into its suite. In each case the theory’s answer is identical and identically beside the point: the originator retains his physical copy.

And the advantages compound on one side. The production house has lower unit costs, established retail relationships, capital reserves, marketing teams, the ability to cross-subsidise and absorb losses, the reach to flood channels and capture search and placement, the option to exploit every derivative format — and, decisively, the ability to copy many authors at once and so diversify the residual risk that any single appropriated work underperforms. The originator has one advantage: the original act of creation. That is precisely the advantage the theory declines to protect.

The predictable equilibrium is not a flowering of liberated competition. It is a migration of production toward whoever holds complementary assets. Publication is delayed; more work is kept private; collaboration narrows because disclosure invites copying. Creators who can monetise something other than the work — celebrity, a platform, a salaried post, a consulting practice, a touring schedule, a patron — survive; the writer who has only the work does not. Expensive categories thin out first: investigative books, scholarly syntheses, technical manuals, large translations, anything whose recovery depends on exclusivity. Patronage returns, and with it the patron’s control over what gets written. And the cost of all this is invisible in the way Bastiat taught us to expect: the cheap copy is seen; the book that was never written, the invention never disclosed, the translation never commissioned, the archive never built, is not. A public domain is not enriched by works that were never made.

This is the outcome the post markets as freedom. It is the opposite of its advertised politics. The argument poses as anti-monopoly and delivers, in practice, the consolidation of the market in the hands of whoever already owns the machinery of reproduction. The man with the press wins; the author is told, generously, that he still has his file.

X. In rem rights are ordinary, and the slippery slope is already fenced

Two residual objections, briefly, because each is answered by the structure of property itself.

The post objects that intellectual property binds strangers — that someone who signed no contract may be enjoined from copying. So it does. But binding strangers is the ordinary architecture of property, not a pathology peculiar to intellectual property. Land title binds strangers. Chattel title binds strangers. Trespass and conversion bind strangers. Easements bind successors who never agreed to them. Security interests reach third parties. Passing-off and trademark restrain merchants who never dealt with the claimant. A right in rem is, by definition, a right good against the world; that is what distinguishes property from contract. The objection that intellectual property binds non-contracting strangers therefore reduces, once again, to the bare assertion that intellectual property is not “real” property — which is the conclusion, restated, not an argument for it. (It is also the precise pressure point on Rothbard’s contractual copyright, which tried to bind third parties through a theory of title-transfer and reservation; the difficulty is real, and it is a reason to ground exclusivity in a property-like in rem right rather than in contract — not a reason to deny the interest exists.)

The post also suggests that admitting intellectual property opens the floodgates: allow it, and every intangible becomes ownable. The premise is false, and its falsity is the category’s strength rather than its weakness. The system is already fenced, comprehensively and on purpose. Bare ideas are not ownable, nor facts, nor laws of nature, nor mathematical truths, nor general concepts, nor public-domain material, nor generic words. Independent creation is a complete answer to a charge of copyright infringement. Prior art and obviousness defeat patents; lack of utility and inadequate disclosure defeat them; loss of secrecy defeats trade secrets; lack of distinctiveness defeats trademarks; fair use and fair dealing limit copyright; exhaustion limits the distribution right; and every exclusive right expires. Feist threw out a laborious directory; Baker threw out a useful method; § 102(b) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty throw out ideas and procedures by their terms. A category defined by what it excludes is not incoherent; it is coherent, in exactly the way a boundary makes a parcel.

What the anti-IP argument does, finally, is judge intellectual property by its abuses while judging physical property by its ideal. Overlong copyright terms are said to disprove copyright; patent trolls to disprove patents; censorship-by-takedown to disprove authors’ rights. But abusive land seizures do not disprove land title, predatory litigation does not disprove contract, and malicious trespass claims do not disprove real property. We refine the rules; we do not declare the category metaphysical nonsense. The asymmetry is the tell. Held to a single standard, intellectual property is a bounded, limited, transferable, enforceable interest with a coherent object — which is all any property right has ever been.

XI. What the theory actually distributes

Strip away the vocabulary and ask what the theory allocates, because every theory of property is, in the end, an allocation of power.

The constitutional and economic purpose of copyright was never to enrich authors as an end. As the Supreme Court put it in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken (1975), the statute strikes a balance — assuring the creator an adequate return for the value of his work while protecting the public from oppressive monopoly — because the immediate device of a private incentive serves an ultimate public end: the production and eventual dissemination of works that would otherwise not be made, or not be made as well. The bargain is criticisable at every margin — too long, too broad, too readily abused — and it should be criticised there. But it has a logic, and the logic is the appropriability problem: without some right of exclusion, certain works are not written, certain inventions are kept secret rather than disclosed, certain investments are not made, and the public domain that the abolitionist promises to enlarge is instead filled with absences.

Kinsella’s theory inverts this. It removes the right from the creator and confers the practical advantage on the better-capitalised copier, and it calls the transfer “liberty” on the ground that the copier used his own machines. But commerce is not the mere operation of machines. It is the organisation of effort, risk, trust, disclosure, timing, and recoverable return; and a theory of property that can see the press but not the authorship, the server but not the work, the warehouse but not the years, is not a theory of liberty. It is a theory of appropriation, optimised for the party who arrives after the cost has been paid by someone else.

XII. Conclusion: not liberty, but appropriation by scale

Kinsella’s argument looks rigorous because it opens with a truth: physical goods are rivalrous, and property in them exists to avert conflict over their use. The error is the inflation of that truth into a complete theory of rights. Scarcity of physical resources explains why chairs need owners. It does not explain why books, inventions, programs, designs, confidential information, and marks should be surrendered to whoever can copy them once they exist.

We can now say exactly where the argument fails. It does not defend its central premise; it borrows it from Hoppe and Rothbard and treats the borrowing as proof, while misreading Rothbard (who defended copyright) and leaning on a Holmes dissent whose premise dissolves the natural-rights frame. It strawmans intellectual property as the ownership of ideas, when the statutes, the treaties, and the cases define it as bounded expression, claimed invention, secrecy, and source — and exclude ideas, methods, facts, and effort. It strawmans intellectual property as the ownership of value, when value is the consequence and not the object, as Harper & Row shows by protecting first publication against a copier who left every physical token intact. It equivocates on “property,” accepting an entire apparatus of intangible juridical relations for land and chattels while declaring the same relations illegitimate for authorship — and its own deepest foundation, the norms of argumentation, is made of the very intangible it forbids. Its ascertainability test, honestly applied, licenses copyright rather than killing it. Its dichotomy is exhaustive only because it deletes the real category, the defined legal interest. And when the argument finally touches working commerce, it cannot represent the appropriability problem at all, and so cannot see that its prescription produces not the abolition of monopoly but its concentration — the migration of the market to whoever owns the means of reproduction.

The honest qualifications stand, and they do not save it. The empirical magnitude of under-provision is contested; conceded — and the contest, ending in Machlup’s indeterminacy, is fatal to confident abolition, not to the cautious defender. Some of what Hoppe and Rothbard say is correct; conceded — and none of it reaches the conclusion. The conclusion was never derived. It was asserted from a premise that begs the question, undermines itself, and, pressed into the real economy, becomes a charter for the man who already owns the press.

A theory of rights that cannot see the author, the inventor, the engineer, the translator, and the unknown writer against the machinery of capital is not, whatever it calls itself, a theory of liberty. It is a theory for the better-capitalised — and it defines its central problem out of existence rather than answering it, which is the one move no theory of property is permitted to make.

References

Primary text under examination-

Kinsella, N. Stephan. “Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value.” StephanKinsella.com, 12 June 2011.

Kinsella, N. Stephan. “Against Intellectual Property.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 15, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 1–53. (Republished as a monograph, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008.)

Austrian / libertarian sources invoked or engaged-

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Boston: Kluwer, 1989, esp. 139–141.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006 [1993].

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, and Walter Block. “Property and Exploitation.” International Journal of Value-Based Management 15, no. 3 (2002): 225–236.

Rothbard, Murray N. Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market. Scholar’s ed., 2nd ed. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009 [1962], ch. 2 §12 and ch. 10 (patents and copyrights — defending copyright; opposing patents).

Economics of intellectual property-

Arrow, Kenneth J. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, 609–626. Princeton: Princeton University Press (NBER), 1962. (Increasing returns, inappropriability, uncertainty; the disclosure paradox.)

Landes, William M., and Richard A. Posner. “An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law.” Journal of Legal Studies 18, no. 2 (1989): 325–363. (Public-good structure; cost of expression versus cost of copies; the access/incentive trade-off.)

Machlup, Fritz. An Economic Review of the Patent System. Study No. 15, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1958, esp. 79–80. (Verdict of indeterminacy.)

Plant, Arnold. “The Economic Aspects of Copyright in Books.” Economica, n.s., 1, no. 2 (1934): 167–195. (Skeptical case; honest counter-authority.)

Plant, Arnold. “The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions.” Economica, n.s., 1, no. 1 (1934): 30–51.

Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. (Comprehensive economic case against IP; honest counter-authority.)

Demsetz, Harold. “Toward a Theory of Property Rights.” American Economic Review 57, no. 2 (1967): 347–359. (Property rights as institutional responses to externality and appropriability.)

Philosophy of social institutions-

Searle, John R. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995. (Institutional facts and status functions — the framework for the “intangible juridical relations” argument.)

Statutes and treaties-

17 U.S.C. § 102 (subject matter of copyright; § 102(b) excludes ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods, concepts, principles, discoveries).

35 U.S.C. § 101 (inventions patentable).

18 U.S.C. § 1839 (trade-secret definition).

15 U.S.C. § 1127 (trademark definition).

WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996), Art. 2 (”Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such”).

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994), Art. 9.2 (idem); Berne Convention (Paris Act, 1971).

Cases-

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879). (Copyright in a book describing a method gives no exclusive right in the method; idea/expression.)

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (Holmes, J., dissenting at 246 — “Property, a creation of law…”).

Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975). (Balanced purpose of copyright: adequate return to the creator while protecting the public from oppressive monopoly.)

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985). (Unpublished manuscript; right of first publication as “an important marketable subsidiary right”; not fair use.)

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). (Originality, not “sweat of the brow”; facts uncopyrightable; copyright rewards originality, not effort.)

Baigent v The Random House Group Ltd, [2007] EWCA Civ 247; Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd, [2000] 1 WLR 2416 (UK; idea/expression and substantial-part doctrine).

Note on sources: statutory and treaty language is quoted from the instruments themselves. Where this essay states what a source argues (Arrow, Landes and Posner, Machlup, Plant, Boldrin and Levine, Rothbard, the cases), the claim reflects the verified content of that source, not a summary of an abstract. Two propositions are flagged as contested rather than settled: the empirical magnitude of creative under-provision absent IP, and the net welfare effect of the patent system — on both, the literature genuinely divides, and the essay relies on that division rather than papering over it.

← Back to Substack Archive