Libertarians have long expressed disdain for intellectual property rights. As an example, Jeffrey A Tucker writes that “ownership is impossible as regards ideas, and no one has a right to profit as such.” Tucker is correct that nobody can own an idea. He is grossly wrong when he claims that no one has a right to profit from an idea.
According to Tucker, Thomas Edison had no right to profit from his inventions of the light bulb, the phonograph, motion photography, and much more. Steve Jobs had no right to profit from the creation of products like the Mackintosh, the iPod, or the iPhone.
The life-sustaining values created by Edison, Jobs, and countless other innovators and entrepreneurs originated with an idea. And it should be noted that, in many instances, that idea was ridiculed and mocked when it was first announced. But the innovators did not care what others thought. They didn’t take an opinion poll or democratic vote. They trusted their own independent judgment and acted accordingly.
Those who have the intelligence to see truths that nobody else sees along with the courage to act on their own vision have a moral right to profit from their efforts. They have earned that right by virtue of their thought and labor.
Not surprisingly, Tucker argues that intellectual property rights are not a moral issue. However, he claims that intellectual property rights are an injustice (as if justice isn’t a moral issue) because they are “about monopolizing the uses of information.” Tucker focuses on one fact—that the government is involved in protecting intellectual property rights—and refuses to consider the full context.
Intellectual property rights are not a monopoly granted by government. They are a recognition by government of that which has been earned. Recognizing intellectual property rights is an act of justice—of granting to individuals that which they have earned.
Edison’s patents did not stop others from creating their own light bulbs. Apple’s patents have not stopped others from producing personal computers or smartphones. Patents do not prevent anyone from applying an idea in a new and unique way. However, patents do prohibit others from applying an idea in the same way as the patent holder. Similarly, copyright laws do not prohibit authors from writing a story with a character named John Galt. They do prohibit authors from copying Atlas Shrugged and calling it their own work.
Much of Tucker’s argument centers on “attribution”—giving people credit for their labor. He correctly notes that virtually every value that is produced requires labor from countless individuals. He asks, “Can you imagine how impossible production would be if every bit of slight progress in all goods and services were somehow required to be attributed?” Having dropped context, Tucker views the issue in terms of non-essentials. Intellectual property rights are not about attribution. They are about justice. They are about recognizing the origination of a material value. A material value is the physical manifestation of an idea or information. In an essay titled “Patents and Copyrights,” Ayn Rand elaborated on this point,
What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
Ideas per se are not copyrighted, patented, or trademarked (the most common forms of intellectual property). Copyrights, patents, or trademarks pertain to the physical manifestation of an idea—a book, a new invention, a logo or slogan. Before anything can be copyrighted, patented, or trademarked, it must be given physical form.
Libertarians who oppose intellectual property rights go on to argue that once an idea has been given physical form, individuals should be free to plagiarize and counterfeit it. Roderick T. Long, a philosophy professor at Auburn, writes that “If I profit from pirating your work, you have a legitimate moral claim against me, but that claim is not a right.” Long does not consider such piracy to be unjust. It is, however, “tacky.” In other words, an unauthorized use or reproduction of another’s work is simply in bad taste.
The defense of plagiarism, counterfeiting, and piracy is founded on the claim that once an individual acquires a material value, he should be free to do with it as he pleases. For example, if someone purchases a copy of Quicken, he should be free to make copies and sell them. This claim, like many made by Libertarians, drop the context.
The users of most commercial software must agree to the terms and conditions established by the publisher. Anyone using the software agrees to those terms and conditions, which usually limits the number of copies that can be made or the number of computers on which the software can be installed. In other words, software users enter into a contractual agreement with the software publisher as a condition of using the application. Like any contract, if an individual doesn’t like the terms and conditions, he is free to abstain from making the purchase.
Libertarians want individuals to be allowed to breach such contracts with impunity. Such a policy would render all contracts worthless and bring commerce to a screeching halt. If producers cannot count on the sanctity of contracts, then they cannot plan long-term. And if they can’t plan long-term, they can’t produce.
Libertarians claim to support the free market. However, by severing politics from morality, what they actually support is subjectivism. However, freedom is not a license to do anything one desires. Freedom creates the social context in which individuals can produce and trade on terms that are mutually agreeable. Legalizing plagiarism, counterfeiting, and piracy, as Libertarians advocate, makes this impossible. Legalizing plagiarism, counterfeiting, and piracy is the true injustice.