Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


Copying Is Not Theft -- remixed (song and video)

(Hat tip Jules Jeffrey)

[Mises; SK]


Now I know why my opinion is different with some others. I pretty much sucked at sharing. I most definitely did not think sharing was "fun." I did not play nice in the sandbox, either.

And you still don't.

lol...I am an individualist in many ways. Sharing is not one of my stronger attributes.

Wonderful! Very rigorous, actually.
But why the FBI warning?
It's obviously a joke.
The concept of the enjoyment of sharing is rooted in the material and transient. I, personally, do not like to share material items such as, let's say, a favorite reference book. This item has great value to me and, if this item is rare, would incur an expense upon me to replace. However, let's say the ideas within this rare reference book have conceptual knowledge that could serve as a basis to new forms of thought. If people can extract what they read from this book to better themselves, then the ideas have transcended the material value of the book. With each reading, it is not only copied but is transformed and is transforming within others. If the book is too jealously guarded as a material item, then it has lost its purpose. This leads me to understand that I guard the book because it maintains a material value to me; but, the ideas it contains, I share for that is what the pursuit of knowledge requires of me.

Or, maybe I'm just full of crap.


Tough for you to share the ideas the book contains, because you do not know which ideas are important, or might be important, to a receiver. So the ideas you may transmit from the reference book might have no value at all to a receiver.

However, the ideas can be obtained from another copy of the book. Any ideas I have I choose to share or not.

Dear full of crap, I understand your jealousy (because I share that as well in some cases), but let's highlight the bright side. Money is cheap. Having a good time is priceless. With more people sharing and understanding, you increase the chances of having a good time.

PS: Money isn't always cheap.

Not sharing your stuff is all right even though you might sometimes be called a jerk by some, but violently preventing others from sharing their stuff is not ok.

I would never violently prevent anyone from sharing their stuff so long as it was acquired per John Locke's third natural right:

Estate - everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

Note that copying is a protected natural right only if copying is granted by gift or trade. Taking a copy without permission meets none of Locke's natural right conditions.

Of course, Locke also apparently said that these rights are violently enforceable, so what do I know?

Note also that these "natural" rights cannot accrue to a business or corporation, only to individuals.

Creation is not an independent source of property rights.

Taking a (pre-existing) copy without its owner's permission would be theft.

Making a copy without permission is something else entirely.

Submit Comment

Blog Post


Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code



Most Recent Comments

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece

Killing people with patents

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Subject Very controversial Gráfica em

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples

Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you

Bonfire of the Missalettes!