Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 419. This is my Soho Forum debate held Aug. 21, 2023, in Manhattan, against Corey DeAngelis, of the American Federation for Children, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians…" (taking the negative). Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 10 to 23 percentage points, gaining about 13; Corey went from about 45 to 64%, gaining about 19, so he won. I was pleased that we had an informative and civil debate about an important issue. (This is my second Soho debate; the first was KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished.) My discussion notes are appended below. See also Reason.com article with video; Reason.com article with podcast. Results Today's school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians.                           Pre                 Post                Change Yes                   44.90%           64.29%            19.39% No                    10.20%            23.47%            13.27% Undecided   44.90%           12.24%            -32.65%   https://www.youtube.com/live/xZF-lT_1pag?si=nJVtVVz6FKsQ4wjv Update: "Gotta say [Kinsella] is right on this, I have done a 180 on this issue. After seeing how "school choice" has been implemented in Alabama, ... I see now it is exactly what SK has been saying. The program explicitly discriminates against the most productive taxpayers and just opens the door of my kid's expensive private school to the lower class dregs." I debated @DeAngelisCorey a couple years ago. I still oppose the optimize-educational-welfare movement, cleverly self-named "school choice", though it does seem to piss off the right people, for the most part. https://t.co/4D776Y96SM There was some talk of us redoing this in… — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) April 25, 2025 School Vouchers Were Supposed to Save Taxpayer Money. Instead They Blew a Massive Hole in Arizona’s Budget. (July 16, 2024) Related: Comments on the Youtube livestream Various comments on twitter: here, here, here, here. Rose City Catholics Fight for LGBTQ Rights—and Start a War With Portland’s Archbishop (July 5, 2023) Educational Scholarship Accounts Lew Rockwell, Education and the Election William Anderson, The Trouble with Vouchers Jacob Hornberger, “School Vouchers Are Anti-Libertarian,” Hornberger’s Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 5, 2022) ———, “More on Anti-Libertarian School Vouchers,” Hornberger’s Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 6, 2022) Bob Murphy Show ep 105: Corey DeAngelis Makes the Case for School Choice Jacob Hornberger Makes the Case AGAINST School Vouchers (with Bob Murphy — Bob Murphy show ep. 248) Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2325 Corey DeAngelis and Connor Boyack: The State’s Schools Are Beyond Repair Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2211 Corey DeAngelis on the School Choice Movement KOL112 | Jack Criss Interview on the Voucher System (1989) Kinsella, “Negates freedom of choice,” Letter to the Editor, The Morning Advocate (Dec. 21, 1988), and related correspondence related to the voucher system and school choice, 1988–89 (Note: Written in a more Randian “Objectivist” phase, and before I came to oppose voucher systems.) DISCUSSION NOTES Resolved: Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians A Soho Forum Debate Corey DeAngelis vs. Stephan Kinsella Aug 21, 2023 The Sheen Center, 18 Bleecker Street, New York, NY 10012 MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES [15 MIN] So there are many ways to explain why intellectual property is illegitimate Oh wait, that’s the wrong debate Resolved: Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians. To answer this question, we need to understand what libertarians should support, and what “Today’s school-choice movement” is Libertarianism is a political philosophy that believes in individual rights to self-ownership and to private property ownership. In short, we oppose “aggression” So libertarians oppose a host of state laws and policies since they themselves commit aggression Such as taxation, war, the drug war, the central bank, and intellectual property (see, IP keeps coming up) Another thing almost all libertarians oppose is public education, more properly named government schools, or state schools, or educational welfare Why do we oppose public education? The three C’s: Compulsory attendance laws; Compulsory financing (by property taxes); government Control over the curriculum The first two are unjust because they involve aggression The third is only possible because of the first two It’s really a result of the first two This Control results in state propaganda and indoctrination be a good citizen believe in global warming and democracy sign up for selective service to fight in the state’s wars mask up, vaccinate, and lock down when we say so! And this predictably results in education that is Too expensive Inferior Full of indoctrination and state propaganda   So libertarians oppose public schools and support eliminating or reducing it, and moving to a private system We support separation of school and state Or education and state Just like we support separation of church and state If we had a state-subsidized church system, like some countries still do, and like the US did for decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified (“Congregationalism” in Massachussetts, for example)—would libertarians be arguing for improvements to this system by “introducing choice,” or would we argue for separation of church and state? This is Jacob Hornberger’s example Jacob Hornberger, “School Vouchers Are Anti-Libertarian,” Hornberger’s Blog(Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 5, 2022) ———, “More on Anti-Libertarian School Vouchers,” Hornberger’s Blog(Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 6, 2022) We would support reducing any of the three C’s: Get rid of or reduce compulsory attendance Get rid of or reduce school property taxes and funding of educational welfare Reduce government control But keep in mind that so long as the government is paying, there will be control “He who pays the piper calls the tune”   So what is “Today’s school-choice movement” It’s a broad attempt to improve public education by various means Vouchers, suggested by Milton Friedman in 1962, which can be used to go to another public school, private school, homeschooling, private tutors Public choice within the public school system Tax credits Educational savings accounts or educational scholarship accounts (ESAs) Tax funded Why should libertarians support this? Does it get rid of or reduce the Three C’s? Education is still compulsory Still funded by taxes What about Control? The state still controls the public schools, so there is still control of public schools And will have to put additional conditions on what private schools “qualify” for state funding So school choice would increase control Why did Hillsdale College have to stop accepting students using guaranteed student loans? To avoid federal control Just a couple months ago, the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, which runs 15 Catholic schools there, terminated a department that was insisting on use of preferred pronouns. The Archbishop declared that students in these schools will be addressed by their birth pronouns rather than their chosen pronouns Of course this caused an uproar If Oregon was funding all the students in these schools via a voucher program, would they permit state funding of a school that “misgenders” students? Would the Archbishop have taken the actions he did, if he thought it would jeopardize funding for the school? See Rose City Catholics Fight for LGBTQ Rights—and Start a War With Portland’s Archbishop (July 5, 2023) As for compulsory funding, or taxes In the current system, there is educational welfare for about 80%-90% of the students (those in public schools) In a full-fledged “school choice” system, now taxpayers have to fund 100% of students So educational welfare expands under school choice Would the cost of educational welfare, that taxpayers are compelled to fund, go down after expanding it to include private schools and private school students? Well have we seen college tuition go down or go up, in the last several decades, as a result of taxpayer subsidies via guaranteed student loans, the GI bill, etc.? To ask is to answer The term “school choice” is somewhat misleading It’s like using semantics to argue substance, much like in the abortion debate where abortion-rights advocates couch their position as “pro-choice” or “pro-life” Well who is against “choice”? Who is against “life”? This is much like how intellectual property advocates refer to patent and copyright, which are just state grants of monopoly privilege, as intellectual “property” to fool people into thinking IP rights are just normal forms of property I told you IP will keep coming up School choice advocates say things like “well rich people have the choice of sending their kids to private schools, why shouldn’t everyone have that choice?” Well, because it requires stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to parents You could say “Rich people have the choice to buy a BMW; why shouldn’t everyone have that choice?” If have the choice to send my kids to college, why shouldn’t everyone have this choice? Aren’t there people now calling for forgiving student loans and providing free college for all?

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 418. See Libertarian Answer Man: TTTC, Contract, Fraud, Conditional Loans, Lottery Tickets This is a followup to KOL414 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part I. See that episode for more information and notes. In Part III, we need to talk about corporations. For more on that, see Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation.   https://youtu.be/5-Zvt59UlSk For more discussion of the comments below, see Libertarian Answer Man: Future and Conditional Title Transfers Under the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 417. Part 3 of my video commentary on Larken Rose's recent comments on IP. For more information, see the description and links at KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1. https://youtu.be/Q6dVF-DP-mY

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 416. Part 2 of my video commentary on Larken Rose's recent comments on IP. For more information, see the description and links at KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1. https://youtu.be/3W7ZSkzjOtQ

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 415. Last year Larken Rose and I appeared on Patrick Smith's Disenthrall show, (( See KOL389 | Disenthrall, with Patrick Smith and Larken Rose: The Morality of Copyright “Piracy”. )) after Rose had posted some videos criticizing libertarians who pirated the HBO show "The Anarchists" as "poopheads," (( See "Pirating" Poopheads. )) even though he technically opposes IP. Or claims to. According to Rose, you should "throwing a couple dollars towards HBO" or something, to avoid being a poophead. He granted that someone pirating an already-leaked video file is not committing aggression (they have no contract with the creator), but they are a "jerk." Or "poop head." After all, the "creator" of the "content" put his "labor" into it and didn't "want it" to be pirated. And his "business model" depends on people "not pirating it." (( See KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory. )) https://youtu.be/Gt3eZBrXcyE Or something. So you are a "poophead" if you mess up their unrealistic business model. In response, I pointed out that if your goal is to produce content—audio, videos, books, etc.—to promote liberty, then you are a "jerk" if you try to paywall it and make it hard for people to access, since you are limiting your content to only rich westerners. Larken was alarmed by this observation and called me a commie, even though I never said you don't have a right to erect a paywall; only that, if you can say someone engaged in the peaceful behavior of "piracy" (( Itself a dishonest, loaded term. See Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”. )) is a "jerk," then I can say someone who is pretending to be engaged in trying to spread the ideas of liberty is intentionally blocking people from seeing it, they are also subject to criticism. This apparently blew his mind. When I challenged him, he literally conceded that poor Africans who pirate a video, even if they could never afford to pay for it, are being "jerks." (Listen from around 28 to 31 minutes.) Unbelievable. Well now he's back on this theme. Apparently he's involved in some libertarian film Jones Plantation, what appears to be a low-budget libertarian film along the lines of J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night or the Atlas Shrugged trilogy; let's hope it's better than those (which were both terrible; see this hilarious evisceration of Alongside Night, which seems to have gotten more views than the movie itself). (I intend to buy a copy—yes, buy a copy—and watch it later.) (Pettifogging, well akshually alert: it's not really "buying" a "copy" in a (libertarian) legal sense, since you can't own information; but it's paying a price to get access to a file download. See "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa—A Dissection," in my forthcoming Legal Foundations of a Free Society—which, yes, will be made available free online; no paywalls, baby.) [Update: as I tweeted, I bought a copy and watched it—and it's surprisingly good! Not the Alongside Night-style disaster I was expecting.] I did this response video to elaborate some aspects of IP and libertarian theory that many people are confused about. My video response took longer than expected so I broke this into three parts. Parts 2–4 to follow: Update: See: KOL416: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 2 KOL417: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 3 Update: See also Patrick Smith's Disenthrall episode commenting on this matter and also on Eric July's use of DMCA takedowns regarding images from his comics appearing on Twitter, etc. https://youtu.be/8HIoVU3n-bU And one more thing. As I wrote to some friends: Another point just occurred to me, which I forgot to mention in my 150-minute screed. It is this. Larken says he's against copyright and that he would never enforce it, right? So in the movie, does he have a copyright notice, or not? Does he have a statement saying "I don't believe in copyright so would never sue pirates, but I'm not gonna make it easy for you—I'm paywalling it". Or more formally, "This work is published under a CC-BY license." Then he would be making clear that he disagrees with copyright and is disavowing federal copyright protection, right? He could still paywall his stuff. But he would just have a work with no copyright on it (in effect). Now if some user uploads it to youtube, they have permission (the CC license is permission—that's what license means: permission) and youtube would not take it down, even if they got a DMCA notice (I think; I suspect; if they took it down and the user appealed, pointing to the CC license, Youtube might well put it back up). Right? Ie., the only reason Larken is able to say that the user is violating Youtube's terms is because he's maintaining the default copyright status on his work that the FedGov gives him, which is what makes the user in violation of Youtube's policies (which terms are adopted only because of copyright law in the first place!). So if Larken did what he claims he believes—no copyright—and put a CC-BY notice on his work, then he would be unable to get it taken down. Just a thought. But it was bad enough when I said libertarians ought to want their message of liberty spread widely. I guess if I now say libertarians have an obligation to put a CC notice on their published works to disavow this evil federal scheme—I'm yet again a commie poophead. Oh well. Or put it this way: suppose Larken sends a DMCA takedown to Odysee but says "By the way, I would never sue the user, but I want you to take it down." Well then Odysee can say "hmm, well then it doesn't matter if we lose our copyright liability exemption, since there will be no liability for our user that we might be liable for." So... of course Larken would not say this. What if Odysee said, "Wait, you want us to take it down--would you ever really sue the user? Aren't you a libertarian?" What would Larken say? Would he lie, and effectively threaten the user? Or would he concede "no, I would not sue him," in which case Odysee might just say "go pound sand then." So, yes, by sending a DMCA takedown notice, it is in and of itself an implied threat to go after the user for copyright infringement. Update on this last point: it has come to my attention that in his book The Most Dangerous Superstition, Rose includes an odd copyright notice on the last page: A Note About the Copyright ... A “copyright” is usually an implied threat (“Don’t copy this, or else!”). While I hope that anyone who likes this book will buy additional copies from me, if someone does copy this book without my permission, that would not make me feel justified in using force against that person, or, my own or via “government.” I copyrighted the book primarily so that no one else could copyright it and thereby use the violence of the state to prevent me from distributing it. What is odd is that in the audio book version, he added a sentence to that notice. It reads: A Note About the Copyright ... A “copyright” is usually an implied threat (“Don’t copy this, or else!”). While I hope that anyone who likes this book will buy additional copies from me, if someone does copy this book without my permission, that would not make me feel justified in using force against that person, or, my own or via “government.” If, however, someone made piles of money from making and selling "bootlegged" copies, I might get nasty. But I copyrighted the book primarily so that no one else could copyright it and thereby use the violence of the state to prevent me from distributing it. (I have underlined the added text.) So let me respond to the many confusions or unlibertarian aspects of this notice here, in turn (and you will see why I fisked his video in a commentary video instead of in writing; some writings are so confused that it takes 10 times the space to debunk it): A “copyright” is usually an implied threat (“Don’t copy this, or else!”). While I hope that anyone who likes this book will buy additional copies from me, if someone does copy this book without my permission, that would not make me feel justified in using force against that person, or, my own or via “government.” I commend him for this. But then, it makes it even more conspicuous that he did not put such a disclaimer in the Jones Plantation movie. (I am assuming this; otherwise the users who uploaded it to Youtube or Odysee could probably use this to have their copies put back up.) What Rose is saying here is if you copyright something (he's wrong about this; it's automatic; on this, see below) it is a threat—usually. But not in his case since (a) he is stating that he would not feel justified in enforcing it, and (b) he's only doing it to keep someone else from copyrighting it (this is also legally incorrect; see below). But the point is, Larken thinks a copyright notice is a threat. Here he gives an excuse for why he did it and says he would not enforce it. But in the movie, they apparently don't do this. So by his own logic, the movie's copyright is a threat to others. Yet Larken in his video kept saying he would not "punch someone" for pirating it. Well threatening to punch them is also unlibertarian, broheem. If, however, someone made piles of money from making and selling "bootlegged" copies, I might get nasty. This seems to indicate he would be willing to sue someone for copyright infringement if they did more than just copy his book—if they made "piles of money" from it. So here we have a capitalist okay with someone doing something that doens't make money, but if they make money, that's bad! In any case, this seems to be a clear threat to enforce his copyright if he feels he needs to. The other absurd thing about it is the stupid idea that anyone could make "piles of money" from an obscure, amateur screed like this.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 414. Regarding this post, Libertarian Answer Man: Breach of Contract, Binding Obligations, and Impossibility, my old and longtime buddy Jeff Barr, a brilliant attorney and legal scholar and fellow Hoppean-Rothbardian (Jeff studied at UNLV under Rothbard and Hoppe), (( See Murray Rothbard as a Teacher: The UNLV Years—A Panel with Rothbard’s Former Students (AERC 2023). ))  discussed these issues in further depth today. (Part 2: KOL418 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part II.) https://youtu.be/1jtDoShqnmI Jeff and I, it turns out, to my surprise (given past discussions), agree mostly on corporate limited liability, (( See my post Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation. )) and Jeff claims to also agree with the Rothbard-Evers take on contracts—the title-transfer theory. We also agree on terminology, legal issues, possession vs. ownership, and so on. (( Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership”. ))  Yet Jeff still thinks that failure/inability to pay a future debt is "theft," much like Rothbard (and Block) view this as "implicit theft," thus justifying in principle debtor's prison, although Barr thinks the theft is not even implicit; he thinks it's explicit theft. This is the crux of our disagreement. We talked about some preliminary matters first to make sure we are on the same page, and ended with this disagreement. Now that we've laid the groundwork, and identified some terminology and common ground, we may pick this up in a future discussion. More to come.

Stefan Kinsella, an American IP lawyer and libertarian legal theorist, discusses law versus legislation and the roots of private/common law. He contrasts monarchy with the modern administrative state. He critiques regulatory classification, legal positivism, and how fiat money shapes social character and incentives.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 412. As noted in KOL409 (Part 1: Patent Law) and KOL411 (Part 2: Copyright Law), although I’ve done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I’ve never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. In KOL409, I did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. KOL411 was a tutorial on copyright law. This episode covers other types of IP, including trademark and trade secret, and argues that defamation law should be considered a type of IP law as well. (Recorded May 11, 2023.) GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL412), recorded on May 11, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers the third and final part of his intellectual property (IP) law tutorial series, focusing on trademark, trade secret, and other forms of IP, including a novel argument that defamation law constitutes a type of IP, aimed at equipping libertarians with a comprehensive understanding of these systems he opposes (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by reviewing the series’ context, recapping patent (KOL409) and copyright (KOL411) tutorials, and outlines trademark law’s origins in consumer protection against fraud, detailing its modern framework under the U.S. Lanham Act, which protects marks identifying goods or services, and trade secret law’s basis in confidentiality agreements (5:01-20:00). He explains trademark registration, infringement lawsuits, and trade secret misappropriation, using examples like a sample trademark registration to illustrate their mechanics, while critiquing their expansion beyond original intent as state-granted monopolies that infringe on property rights (20:01-35:00). Kinsella argues that defamation law, protecting reputation, functions as an IP right by restricting speech, aligning with his libertarian view that all IP forms violate property rights by limiting tangible resource use (35:01-50:00). He discusses other IP types, like mask works and boat hull designs, and critiques their niche but restrictive nature, emphasizing the economic and competitive harms of IP, such as litigation costs and barriers to innovation (50:01-1:05:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on topics like trademark’s role in brand protection, trade secret enforcement in a free market, and IP’s broader societal impacts, reinforcing his call for IP’s abolition and directing listeners to c4sif.org for resources (1:05:01-1:20:55). He concludes by summarizing the series’ goal to empower libertarians to challenge IP, encouraging further study of his anti-IP works, including Against Intellectual Property (1:20:56-1:20:55). This episode is a critical resource for understanding trademark, trade secret, and defamation laws through a libertarian lens.   Youtube Transcript and GROK DETAILED SUMMARY below. Others in the series: KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law Further resources: IP Resources Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF) A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Anti-IP Youtube Videos: A Selection KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other The slides I used are streamed below and here (powerpoint) and streamed below. https://youtu.be/DQ0MXbBn264 GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL412 podcast, recorded on May 11, 2023, is the third and final part of an IP law tutorial series, focusing on trademark, trade secret, and other IP forms, including defamation as a novel IP category. As a libertarian patent attorney opposing IP, Kinsella provides a detailed overview of these laws’ legal frameworks, historical origins, and practical impacts, tailored for libertarians to understand and critique the system. Rooted in Austrian economics, the 80-minute lecture uses examples and slides to clarify mechanics, followed by a Q&A addressing libertarian concerns. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for approximately 5-15 minute blocks, based on the transcript at the provided podcast link and supported by context from web results (e.g.,). Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Series Context (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces the tutorial, recapping prior episodes and his anti-IP stance (0:00-2:30). Trademark Law Overview (5:01-20:00): Details trademark’s origins, legal framework, and registration, critiquing its monopolistic expansion (2:31-15:00). Trade Secret Law and Mechanics (20:01-35:00): Explains trade secret’s basis in confidentiality, enforcement, and libertarian objections (15:01-30:00). Defamation as IP and Enforcement (35:01-50:00): Argues defamation is an IP right, critiquing its speech restrictions and economic harms (30:01-45:00). Other IP Forms and Systemic Critiques (50:01-1:05:00): Covers niche IP types and IP’s broader economic/cultural costs (45:01-1:00:00). Q&A: Libertarian Perspectives (1:05:01-1:20:55): Addresses trademark protection, trade secret enforcement, and IP’s societal impacts (1:00:01-1:15:00). Conclusion and Resource Direction (1:20:56-1:20:55): Urges IP abolition, directs to c4sif.org, and concludes the series (1:15:01-1:20:55). Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Series Context) Description: Kinsella opens by introducing the third IP law tutorial, following patent (KOL409) and copyright (KOL411) lectures, emphasizing his libertarian opposition to IP and the goal of educating libertarians to critique these systems (0:00-2:00). He outlines the episode’s focus on trademark, trade secret, and other IP forms, including defamation as a novel IP category, and promises a technical yet accessible explanation using slides (2:01-3:30). He references his anti-IP work at c4sif.org, setting a critical tone (3:31-5:00). Summary: The block introduces the tutorial, recapping the series and framing Kinsella’s anti-IP perspective for libertarians. 5:01-10:00 (Trademark Law History) Description: Kinsella traces trademark law’s history to common law protections against consumer fraud, evolving into statutory rights under the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.), which protects marks identifying goods or services (5:01-7:00). He critiques its expansion from fraud prevention to state-granted monopolies, restricting free use of symbols, and contrasts its origins with patents and copyrights (7:01-8:30). He introduces trademark’s role in branding, like Coca-Cola’s logo (8:31-10:00). Summary: Trademark’s historical roots in fraud prevention are outlined, critiquing its modern monopolistic scope. 10:01-15:00 (Trademark Legal Framework) Description: Kinsella details the Lanham Act, explaining that trademarks protect distinctive marks (e.g., logos, slogans) used in commerce, requiring registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for federal protection (10:01-12:00). He discusses eligibility criteria—distinctiveness and use in commerce—and contrasts trademark’s perpetual term (renewable every 10 years) with patents’ 20 years (12:01-13:30). He critiques trademark’s restriction on speech and competition (13:31-15:00). Summary: The trademark legal framework is explained, highlighting its registration and perpetual term, with a libertarian critique. 15:01-20:00 (Trademark Registration and Scope) Description: Kinsella explains the trademark registration process, involving USPTO applications, distinctiveness assessments, and fees, using a sample registration () to illustrate (15:01-17:00). He details trademark scope, protecting against consumer confusion, and critiques its overreach, like lawsuits over similar logos, restricting property use (17:01-18:30). He contrasts federal and state trademarks, noting federal dominance (18:31-20:00). Summary: Trademark registration and scope are detailed, critiquing its overreach as a restriction on property rights. 20:01-25:00 (Trade Secret Law Basics) Description: Kinsella introduces trade secret law, protecting confidential information (e.g., Coca-Cola’s recipe) under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1831), requiring reasonable secrecy measures (20:01-22:00). He explains its basis in contracts or torts, like non-disclosure agreements, and contrasts its lack of registration with patents and trademarks (22:01-23:30). He critiques its potential to restrict labor mobility (23:31-25:00). Summary: Trade secret law’s basics are outlined, highlighting its contractual basis and libertarian concerns about labor restrictions. 25:01-30:00 (Trade Secret Enforcement) Description: Kinsella discusses trade secret enforcement through misappropriation lawsuits, where breaches of confidentiality or improper acquisition trigger claims, using examples like employee leaks (25:01-27:00). He explains remedies—injunctions and damages—and critiques the system’s vagueness, enabling overbroad claims that hinder competition (27:01-28:30). He contrasts trade secrets’ narrower scope with patents’ monopolistic reach (28:31-30:00). Summary: Trade secret enforcement is detailed, critiquing its vagueness and competitive harms. 30:01-35:00 (Defamation as IP)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 411. As noted in KOL409 (Part 1: Patent Law), although I've done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I've never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. In KOL409, I did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. This episode provides a tutorial on copyright law. (Recorded Thursday, April 27, 2023.) See additional note below. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL411), recorded on April 26, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers the second part of his intellectual property (IP) law tutorial series, focusing on copyright law, as a resource for libertarians to understand and critique the system he opposes (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by reviewing the foundations of copyright law, tracing its historical roots to English censorship practices and the 1710 Statute of Anne, and explains its modern framework under the U.S. Copyright Act, which grants exclusive rights to creators of original works like books, music, and software for extended periods (5:01-20:00). He details the copyright registration process, eligibility criteria (e.g., originality, fixation), and scope of protection, using examples like a sample copyright registration to illustrate how copyrights restrict others’ use of expressive content (20:01-35:00). Kinsella’s tutorial emphasizes his libertarian critique, arguing that copyrights violate property rights by limiting how individuals use their tangible resources. Kinsella further explores copyright enforcement, including infringement lawsuits, remedies like injunctions and damages, and defenses such as fair use, while critiquing the system’s economic and cultural harms, such as stifling creativity and inflating costs (35:01-50:00). He discusses special copyright issues, like the work-made-for-hire doctrine and derivative works, and contrasts copyright’s long term (life of the author plus 70 years) with patent law’s shorter duration, noting its automatic grant without registration (50:01-1:05:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on topics like copyright’s impact on open-source software, international copyright treaties, and his ethical stance as an IP attorney, reinforcing his view that copyrights are state-imposed monopolies (1:05:01-1:25:47). He concludes by previewing the final tutorial on trademarks and trade secrets, urging libertarians to use this knowledge to oppose IP, and directing listeners to c4sif.org for resources (1:25:48-1:25:47). This episode is a critical guide for understanding copyright law’s mechanics and libertarian objections. Youtube Transcript and GROK DETAILED SUMMARY below. For other episodes in the series: KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other Further resources: IP Resources Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF) A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Anti-IP Youtube Videos: A Selection KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other The slides I used are streamed below and here (.pptx) and streamed below. https://youtu.be/1yziV15ZGso In the Q&A session, a participant asked a question about joint ownership of patents and patent licensing. In the lecture I had pointed out that for co-authors of a copyright-protected work, each has the right to license the work, without permission of the other co-author(s), but has to share any profits (make an accounting) with them. The question was what the rule was in the case of patents, and I had forgotten the nuance. In patents the rule is similar, except the inventor-co-owner who grants the license need not make an accounting. Regarding the issue of joint inventors on a patent, I had a brain fart. In copyright, co-authors can each license the work but if they make a profit, they have to account to the other co-author. Under patent law, if there are joint inventors, they all presumably co-own the patent (unless the employer does in the case of work for hire), and each one is entitled to (non-exclusively) license it, just as in the copyright case, but there is no obligation to do an accounting of profits made. As the Patent Act (35 USC §262 - Joint owners) provides: In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners. GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL411 podcast, recorded on April 26, 2023, is the second part of an IP law tutorial series, focusing on copyright law. As a libertarian patent attorney opposing IP, Kinsella provides a comprehensive overview of copyright’s legal framework, historical origins, and practical impacts, tailored for libertarians to understand and critique the system. Rooted in Austrian economics, the 85-minute lecture uses examples and slides to clarify copyright mechanics, followed by a Q&A addressing libertarian concerns. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for approximately 5-15 minute blocks, based on the transcript at the provided podcast link and supported by context from web results (e.g.,). Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Copyright Overview (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces the tutorial, emphasizing his anti-IP stance and the need to understand copyright law (0:00-2:30). Copyright History and Legal Framework (5:01-20:00): Traces copyright’s censorship origins and details its U.S. legal structure (2:31-15:00). Copyright Registration and Scope (20:01-35:00): Explains registration, eligibility, and protection scope, using examples (15:01-30:00). Copyright Enforcement and Harms (35:01-50:00): Covers infringement, remedies, and economic/cultural costs, critiquing the system (30:01-45:00). Special Copyright Issues (50:01-1:05:00): Discusses work-made-for-hire, derivative works, and copyright’s long term (45:01-1:00:00). Q&A: Libertarian Critiques and Ethics (1:05:01-1:20:27): Addresses open-source, international treaties, and IP ethics, reinforcing abolition (1:00:01-1:15:00). Conclusion and Future Tutorials (1:20:28-1:25:47): Urges opposition to IP, previews trademark tutorial, and directs to resources (1:15:01-1:25:47). Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Copyright Overview) Description: Kinsella opens by introducing the second IP law tutorial, following his patent law lecture (KOL409), emphasizing his libertarian opposition to IP and the importance of understanding copyright to critique it effectively (0:00-2:00). He outlines the episode’s focus on copyright, distinguishing it from patents, and promises a technical yet accessible explanation using slides, referencing his anti-IP work at c4sif.org (2:01-3:30). He sets a critical tone, noting copyright’s role as a state monopoly (3:31-5:00). Summary: The block introduces the copyright tutorial, framing Kinsella’s anti-IP perspective and its relevance for libertarians. 5:01-10:00 (Copyright History) Description: Kinsella traces copyright’s origins to English censorship, highlighting the Stationers’ Company’s printing monopoly and the 1710 Statute of Anne, which granted authors limited-term rights (5:01-7:00). He critiques its statist roots, noting its evolution into modern U.S. copyright law under the Constitution’s IP clause (7:01-8:30). He introduces the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.), outlining its purpose to protect creative expression (8:31-10:00). Summary: Copyright’s historical roots in censorship are outlined, framing it as a state privilege, not a libertarian right. 10:01-15:00 (Copyright Legal Framework) Description: Kinsella details the U.S. Copyright Act, explaining that copyrights protect original works of authorship (e.g., books, music, software) fixed in a tangible medium, granting exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and perform (10:01-12:00). He contrasts copyright’s automatic protection upon fixation with patents’ application process, noting its long term (life plus 70 years) and critiquing its restrictive scope (12:01-13:30). He provides examples like novels and films (13:31-15:00). Summary: The legal framework of copyright is explained, highlighting its automatic grant and extended duration, with a critical perspective. 15:01-20:00 (Copyright Eligibility and Registration) Description: Kinsella discusses copyright eligibility, requiring originality (minimal creativity) and fixation (e.g., written or recorded), using examples like a song or poem (15:01-17:00). He explains the optional registration process with the U.S. Copyright Office, which enhances enforcement but isn’t required, referencing a sample registration () (17:01-18:30). He critiques the bureaucratic nature of registration, noting its cost and complexity (18:31-20:00). Summary: Copyright eligibility and registration are detailed, using examples to show protection mechanics, with a critique of bureaucracy. 20:01-25:00 (Copyright Scope and Rights)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 410. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. 6 (WiM303) (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 6 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released April 21, 2023). From Robert’s Episode notes: EPISODE SUMMARY Stephan Kinsella joins me to continue our discussion about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the impact of incentive schemes on productivity, the fake communism of the USSR, modern-day slavery, and why Bitcoin is the ultimate solution to centralization. EPISODE NOTES Stephan Kinsella joins me to continue our discussion about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the impact of incentive schemes on productivity, the fake communism of the USSR, modern-day slavery, and why Bitcoin is the ultimate solution to centralization. // OUTLINE // 00:00:00 - Coming up 00:01:25 - Intro 00:02:59 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing 00:03:45 - A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe 00:03:59 - Historical Examples of Capitalist vs. Socialist Incentives 00:08:05 - The Fake Communism of the USSR 00:09:56 - The Impact of Incentive Schemes on Productivity 00:15:33 - Property Rights are the Key Incentives of a Productive Economy 00:19:42 - How Political Risk Influences Investments and Productivity 00:22:57 - Pros and Cons of International Treaties 00:26:02 - Bitcoin as a Neutral International Settlement Layer 00:28:13 - The Importance of Treaty Obligations and International Law 00:30:32 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with The iCoin Hardware Wallet 00:31:27 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth 00:32:29 - A Bitcoin Wallet with Privacy Built-In: Wasabi Wallet 00:33:22 - Public vs. Private Means of Production 00:36:04 - Private Slavery vs. Public Slavery 00:38:48 - Modern-Day Slavery 00:44:03 - How to Remove the Shackles of Slavery 00:48:47 - The Natural Law vs. The Fake Law 00:51:46 - Every Law Should Have an Expiration Date 00:53:48 - A Chance to Win Discounted Tickets to the Bitcoin 2023 Conference and 10M SATS 00:54:43 - Hold Bitcoin in the Most Secure Custody Model with Casa 00:55:31 - Can We Return to the Common Law? 00:57:51 - The Case Against Democracy 00:58:54 - How did the U.S. Shift from a Constitutional Republic to a Democracy 01:06:56 - A Movement towards Centralization and Back to Decentralization 01:12:00 - The Case of The Abortion Law in the U.S. 01:13:40 - The Role of the Federal Reserve in Centralization 01:20:22 - Where to Find Stephan's Work