KOL171 | With Albert Lu Discussing Stossel and IP

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 171. I was a guest yesterday (Feb. 6, 2015) on Albert Lu's "The Economy" podcast, discussing my recent appearance on Stossel [Stossel Show on Intellectual Property (Fox Business Channel, Jan. 30, 2015)]. The full episode is here; the portion including only our interview is included in this podcast feed. Transcript and grok shownotes below. GROK SHOWNOTES Show Notes: KOL171 | The Albert Lu Podcast: Discussing Stossel and Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella Introduction to Intellectual Property Debate [0:00–1:00] Albert Lu introduces the topic of intellectual property (IP) by referencing a recent episode of The John Stossel Show that explored the concept. He highlights how America grants creators exclusive rights to their works—such as songs, books, and movies—to encourage innovation, but notes the controversial nature of IP, as illustrated by Stossel’s comment about YouTube viewership being akin to “stealing.” Lu introduces his guest, Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and libertarian writer who appeared on Stossel’s show to discuss IP from a libertarian perspective. Kinsella expresses his enthusiasm for the mainstream platform addressing this issue, noting Stossel’s open-minded approach despite his leanings toward supporting some form of IP. Overview of Stossel’s Show and IP Arguments [1:00–4:13] Lu and Kinsella discuss the structure of the Stossel episode, which included a debate between a pro-IP attorney and an anti-IP advocate, David Koepsell, recommended by Kinsella himself. The show examined six industries—magic tricks, music, fashion, TV, literature, and comedy—highlighting that three are protected by IP laws while three are not, yet all exhibit significant innovation. Kinsella praises the show for its balanced approach and libertarian perspective, a rarity in mainstream media. He notes that different producers handled various segments, and the inclusion of guests like Chris Brigman (discussing fashion) and Doug Stanhope (a libertarian comedian) supported the anti-IP stance by showing how industries thrive without IP protection, such as fashion benefiting from copying and magic tricks relying on community self-enforcement. Examples of Innovation Without IP Protection [4:13–8:25] Kinsella elaborates on specific examples from the show that challenge the necessity of IP. He points out that fashion designers benefit from copying, which helps establish their trendsetting status, contrary to the belief that IP is essential for innovation. The discussion also covers literature, where the absence of copyright for foreign authors in the 19th-century U.S. allowed widespread access to works like those of Charles Dickens, boosting literacy and making him famous enough to profit from speaking tours. Kinsella critiques the pro-IP attorney’s shift to moral arguments when utilitarian claims faltered, particularly citing the example of a George Harrison song, “My Sweet Lord,” which faced copyright issues for resembling an older tune. He argues that strict IP enforcement could have prevented such cultural contributions, citing cases like the banned Catcher in the Rye sequel and the destruction of Nosferatu copies as instances of IP-driven censorship. Impact of IP on Innovation and Lives [8:25–12:31] The conversation shifts to the broader implications of IP, particularly its detrimental effects on innovation and human lives. Kinsella highlights how patents can stifle life-saving technologies, such as seatbelt mechanisms or drugs like Fabrazyme, which treats Fabry disease. He recounts how patent restrictions and FDA regulations led to drug shortages, causing harm to patients. Kinsella criticizes the pro-IP attorney’s justification of courtroom enforcement as a legitimate means of coercion, comparing it to a sanitized form of thuggery. He references a Spooner quote to argue that state-backed IP enforcement is more insidious than overt theft, as it institutionalizes coercion. Additionally, Kinsella discusses the economic toll of patent trolls, estimating they extract billions annually through legal threats, further hampering innovation and competition. Corporate Interests and Copyright Extensions [12:31–16:06] Lu raises the issue of corporate interests, exemplified by Disney’s copyright on Snow White, a public domain story, and its extensions to protect characters like Mickey Mouse. Kinsella explains how Disney’s lobbying led to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, prolonging copyrights to life plus 70 years in the U.S., and how the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has pushed other countries to match this term. He critiques the retroactive extension of copyrights, which pulls works back from the public domain, calling it “crazy” and a distortion of property rights. Kinsella notes the confusion between trademark and copyright in public discourse, even among experts, and highlights the hypocrisy of Disney using public domain works while aggressively protecting its own IP. Property Rights vs. IP Rights [16:06–19:51] Kinsella addresses the core libertarian critique of IP by contrasting it with true property rights. He argues that unlike physical property rights, which are perpetual, IP rights expire, indicating they are not genuine property rights but state-granted monopolies. Drawing from his work in Legal Foundations of a Free Society and Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property, Kinsella explains that the founders, like Thomas Jefferson, viewed patents and copyrights as temporary privileges, not natural rights. He criticizes the propaganda that rebranded these as “intellectual property” in the 19th century to counter free-market economists’ opposition, as detailed in The Problem with Intellectual Property. Kinsella notes that even libertarian IP supporters like Ayn Rand offered convoluted justifications for limited IP terms, reinforcing his view that IP lacks a coherent moral or logical basis. Final Thoughts and Stossel’s Position [19:51–23:41] In the closing segment, Kinsella reflects on Stossel’s ambivalence, noting his acknowledgment of IP’s problems but reliance on a utilitarian defense, fearing his show’s viability without copyright. Kinsella argues that businesses must adapt to a free market without IP, as discussed in The Problem with Intellectual Property, rather than expecting property systems to conform to their models. He suggests Stossel’s conflict of interest, tied to Fox’s media empire, may influence his stance, though he personally supports piracy of his show on YouTube. Lu encourages Kinsella to return to Stossel’s show to further advocate for IP abolition, emphasizing the need to address issues like the TPP. The episode concludes with Lu thanking Kinsella and directing listeners to his website, c4sif.org, for more resources on anti-IP arguments. TRANSCRIPT Introduction to the Show Timestamp: 0:00 Albert Lu: Like they don't even exist, okay? Coming up next, I’ve got a clip from the John Stossel show, and Stephan Kinsella is going to join me to talk about intellectual property. America grants certain rights to creators of songs, books, movies, paintings. The idea is to encourage the creation and proliferation of new ideas by providing a brief and limited period of exclusivity. “I’m an intellectual property attorney, and you have stolen my client’s melody. You can be sued and found liable for monetary damages.” And yet, some of you watch my show on YouTube. That’s stealing. And that’s our show tonight. That was the voice of John Stossel last week as he discussed intellectual property. And one of the guests on the show was patent attorney and libertarian writer Stephan Kinsella, who joins me now. Timestamp: 1:00 Albert Lu: Stephan, thanks for joining me today. How are you? Timestamp: 1:02 Stephan Kinsella: I’m very well, glad to be here. Timestamp: 1:04 Albert Lu: Yeah, I thought it was very encouraging actually that the John Stossel show decided to take on this issue. Of course, he leans libertarian, but he is pretty much a mainstream audience, I think. And so, you were part of that segment, but I want to talk about the segments that preceded you. They had a pro-IP advocate and an anti-IP advocate, and I thought it was very interesting because they started with a utilitarian argument. John Stossel framed it this way, and they brought up, I would say, over the course of the show, five different examples—perhaps there were some that I missed, but five or six. And the ones that I remember are magic tricks, music, fashion, TV, literature, and comedy. And the interesting thing about those were, three of them are protected by IP, three are not. And if you don’t really think about these things, you wouldn’t really know which ones were and which ones weren’t because there’s so much innovation in all six areas, correct? Timestamp: 2:06 Stephan Kinsella: Yeah, the show was a very good show, I think. I was very heartened that they had it. I’m to have a mainstream show deal with IP policy from a libertarian perspective. I think it’s probably the first time it’s ever been done, and I give Stossel credit for being open-minded. And I think he’s leaning in our direction. He did say he wasn’t sure where the line should be. He wants there to be some IP, but he recognized it’s not always necessary, and he recognized lots of problems with it. The interesting thing about the show, I found out after I was there, is that each of the segments had different producers. So, there’s just a big operation, and I was actually contacted twice by two producers independently. So, I was contacted for my segment, and then a few days later, I was contacted by the other producer for that first segment, which was a debate. But I said, “I’m already gonna be on the show,” and he said, “Well, who else can we get?” And I said, “Well, here’s three or four really good free-market, anti-IP people, including David Koepsell,