Cara Frater,
I have noticed that for some time there has been a document available on your site called Expounding Liber Trigrammaton. This document contains numerous pages taken from my work without my permission. The pages in particular cover all the tables of hexagrams, and start at the beginning of the Appendices, immediately following the commentary proper. Then there is an interlude of fragments of the work of C.F. Russell, (and while it is none of my business, you may want to remove these as well if you don’t have permission from the original site owners). More of my work is then found in the section called Liber Trigrammaton Decoded, and concludes with the six color charts at the very end.
While I appreciate the compliment in considering my work worthy of inclusion, I think it only fair to me that these be removed ASAP. There is far more material being used than could ever constitute ‘fair use’, and some of it is outdated and not at all representative of my present conclusions on the matter.
You are always free to link to my site at trigrammaton.com, where the same information can be found in a tabular form.
I would appreciate your timely attention to this, as a point of respect to a fellow-member of the A.A.
Fraternally yours,
R. Leo Gillis 8* = 3*
Care non-Frater…who doesn’t proffer ideas for the benefit of the community…but wants to own them…
I can see you’re more interested in taking credit for the ideas than the ideas themselves…and you have no interest in sharing w/your brother (translated into Latin as “frater”).
I will capitulate to your need to commit the one sin that Liber AL teaches us…restriction…And in its place I will put your note…as I’ve done with those other shut-ups (the Caliphate and HOOR…see attached emails). What a delicious irony after we’ve just completed our recording of a podcast denouncing IP.
Please log onto our websites in a few weeks…listen to the podcast…and since I acknowledge that it not only a restriction to pretend to own ideas…but a crime against human evolution…You can of course, copy any of my ideas…I don’t own them…they belong to the world…especially
ALL THINGS SPIRITUAL
(good thing AL’s in the public domain…huh!) copy all four of my websites for all I care…and put your name on all the articles…I didn’t write for you or anyone else to pat me on the back.
I wrote to bring important ideas to the world so that Thelema would grow…
But of course, you couldn’t understand this.
[no Thelemic greetings for your UN-fraternal behavior]
The anti Liber OZ…man has the right to write what he will…as long as he doesn’t violate R. Leo Gillis’, the Caliphate or HOOR’s IP
Dwtw
Your hostility amazes me. If you read my letter carefully you will see that I am not trying to hide information whatsoever, but put in in its proper structure.
By collating my charts with someone else’s work, you give the illusion that they are somehow from the same source, which they are not. Had you simply stated the origin of this material, it would have been much more sensible, so that the casual reader would know that these were different documents sewn together from disparate sources.
Of course I don’t own the ”ideas”, no one can copyright an idea. But the form in which they are presented is something of my own devising, and that is what copyright is about. You have herd of copyright haven’t you?
Once again, I am not trying to restrict anyone from having the information, which is why I said you could link to my own site, which has all of the same information on it. You have had this document online for a number of years and I have never said anything about if before, but enough is enough. Just because anything can be found on the internet does not make it free to exploit for your own purposes – even if they are non-commercial. It is a simple violation of copyright.
I would be happy to link to your work and the work of others, but I would not take portions of it and put it in my own document without citation. This has nothing to do with ‘fraternity’; it is simple respect for anyone, brother or not, to allow them credit and control for what they have done.
Once again, I see no need for hostility; I asked you in a very polite way to respect my rights as an author, just as I would respect yours, and which the law dictates.
Litlluw
RLG
Dwtw
After reading some of your attachments, I get the feeling that you are confusing copyright with commercial gain. The concept of copyright is not necessarily about commercial control, it is the right to make copies. What you do with those copies is your own business, sell them, give them away, post them in the town square, whatever. Copyright is violated whenever someone makes a copy of someone else’s work, regardless if they sell it for a profit.
The purpose behind copyright, as shown in the U. S Constitution, is not to make authors and creators richer; it is to make society richer. By protecting their work, creators will feel more inclined to create–or so the theory goes. but whether you believe that theory or not, the fact is that copyright was not instituted for the commercial benefit of the creator, but the greater benefit of society.
[pj note: Here's a quote from Joel Poindexter from the Mises Institute: "...the actual wording from article 1, section 8 reads, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries…." There is nothing in that clause regarding free speech. The history of copyright laws is rooted not only in protection for guilds but also in censorship. So to suggest that copyrights are intended to secure rights to free expression could only be described as Orwellian." The "useful arts" are not the intellectual or aesthetic arts, but the various crafts of our society. Find the whole of this article at the bottom of this page.]
When it comes to the work of mine which you have expropriated; if you would simply separate it as it’s own document, and cite the source, it would not be a problem. But merging it with someone else’s work, without any clear indication that the sources are different, is not only confusing to the reader, but very shoddy scholarship. I am not the least bit interested in having the ‘right’ for any of my ideas. But I do want the control of the form that they are presented in. That’s the ‘copy’ part of the copyright. if you want to take those ideas and put them in a new format, then that is fine with me. and whether you credit me for them or not, i don’t really care. but the actual work that i did, the actual ‘copy’; i would prefer not be used without permission.
So have someone make their own tables of hexagrams, if it’s that important to you, or else link to my site where they can see my version. either way, the number 156 is 012210 in base three. no one has the copyright on that.
and as for any imputed financial considerations of my copyright assertions – No one could ever pay me enough to recompense the thousands of hours I have spent on Trigrammaton Qabalah.To think I ever did any of it thinking it would be remunerative is to not know me at all.
Just so we’re clear; once again, I am not asserting ‘restriction’ over my ideas; I simply don’t want the actual form I put those ideas in used without my permission, and especially without citing me as the source.
Litlluw
RLG
Dwtw
In addition to my other comments, I may note your ironic use of the idea of ‘restriction’ in this mater.
If anyone is guilty of restricting something, it is YOU, since you have restricted MY WILL to promulgate my ideas in the form that I choose.
One the ideas are in the noosphere, I don’t care what anyone does with them. But it is in accordance with my will to have them promulgated in a particular form.
It is that form which is subject to my copyright, NOT the ideas themselves.
For example, you have another document on your site called the ‘Greek Qabalah’. The author of this work has chosen to include my Greek translation of the Thoth tarot names into his work. He did not ask for permission to do this; however, since he cited me as the source, and presented the ideas in essentially the same form that I released them, I have no problem with what he did. If he had not cited me, or had misrepresented my work, I would take issue with that. As it stands, he did a fine job (minus a couple typeset issues), and thus those ideas are released into the noosphere in a properly respectful fashion that does not impinge on or restrict my will.
So contrary to your assertions that I am overly concerned with protecting my IP, I am merely asking that my Will as a creator not be restricted by others, and I, in turn, give others that same courtesy.
Litlluw
RLG
Leo…
93
Yes, I should have cited the source…it would have been more credulous…though I have a habit of sticking other works in appendices and this included and forgotten a long time ago. It was an oversight on my part…my anger came from your approach. I’ve made this mistake before and others have simply asked me to give credit where credit was due…not to remove…the latter is an element of control.
93/93
pj
Leo,
93
After reading some of your attachments, I get the feeling that you are confusing copyright with commercial gain. The concept of copyright is not necessarily about commercial control, it is the right to make copies. What you do with those copies is your own business, sell them, give them away, post them in the town square, whatever. Copyright is violated whenever someone makes a copy of someone else’s work, regardless if they sell it for a profit.
[my response:] Copyright is about control; period…it does not matter whether or not there is commercial viability. And exercising that control as you have, delimits the idea proffered. Copyright law is about commercial monopoly; period. Your effort at control monopolizes the idea to your control.
The purpose behind copyright, as shown in the U. S Constitution, is not to make authors and creators richer; it is to make society richer. By protecting their work, creators will feel more inclined to create–or so the theory goes. but whether you believe that theory or not, the fact is that copyright was not instituted for the commercial benefit of the creator, but the greater benefit of society.
[my response:] The effect is that it doesn’t enrich the individual; just this vague notion of society. The only ones that really gain from copyright are large corporate structures; at the expense of the individual.
when it comes to the work of mine which you have expropriated; if you would simply separate it as it’s own document, and cite the source, it would not be a problem. But merging it with someone else’s work, without any clear indication that the sources are different, is not only confusing to the reader, but very shoddy scholarship.
[my response:] Yes, it was “shoddy scholarship” on my part.
I am not the least bit interested in having the ‘right’ for any of my ideas. But I do want the control of the form that they are presented in. That’s the ‘copy’ part of the copyright.
You’ve reiterated my point…it’s about control. Once an idea is offered up to the world at large, one loses control and others play off the idea…that’s liberty.
if you want to take those ideas and put them in a new format, then that is fine with me. and whether you credit me for them or not, i don’t really care. but the actual work that i did, the actual ‘copy’; i would prefer not be used without permission.
So have someone make their own tables of hexagrams, if it’s that important to you, or else link to my site where they can see my version. either way, the number 156 is 012210 in base three. no one has the copyright on that.
[my response:] again…it’s all about control
and as for any imputed financial considerations of my copyright assertions – No one could ever pay me enough to recompense the thousands of hours I have spent on Trigrammaton Qabalah.To think I ever did any of it thinking it would be remunerative is to not know me at all.
[my response:] that’s part of my point…there’s no money to be made in Thelema and there’s a bunch of petty power mongers preventing the spread of Thelemic ideas…why not let them take their own course?
Just so we’re clear; once again, I am not asserting ‘restriction’ over my ideas; I simply don’t want the actual form I put those ideas in used without my permission, and especially without citing me as the source.
[my response:] control control control
Litlluw
RLG
Leo
93
In addition to my other comments, I may note your ironic use of the idea of ‘restriction’ in this mater.
If anyone is guilty of restricting something, it is YOU, since you have restricted MY WILL to promulgate my ideas in the form that I choose.
[my response:] No I haven’t…you are promulgating the ideas in the form you chose…I was promulgating them in the form I chose…and you prevented me from doing that…though of course, I should have cited you properly as the originator of the idea.
One the ideas are in the noosphere, I don’t care what anyone does with them. But it is in accordance with my will to have them promulgated in a particular form.
It is that form which is subject to my copyright, NOT the ideas themselves.
[my response:] petty
For example, you have another document on your site called the ‘Greek Qabalah’. The author of this work has chosen to include my Greek translation of the Thoth tarot names into his work. He did not ask for permission to do this; however, since he cited me as the source, and presented the ideas in essentially the same form that I released them, I have no problem with what he did. If he had not cited me, or had misrepresented my work, I would take issue with that. As it stands, he did a fine job (minus a couple typeset issues), and thus those ideas are released into the noosphere in a properly respectful fashion that does not impinge on or restrict my will.
So contrary to your assertions that I am overly concerned with protecting my IP, I am merely asking that my Will as a creator not be restricted by others, and I, in turn, give others that same courtesy.
[my response:] I was not restricting your will…I just failed to pat you on the back.
93/93
pj
[my response:] ps…and it was an act of restricting…you asked for removal…not credit.
93
Dwtw
Yes, copyright is about control.There is no dispute there. And a creator is allowed to control the form of their creation.
Ideas are beyond ‘control’ – so if you take an idea, repackage it in your own fashion and then promulgate it, there is no problem.
I should be clear that I am not angry about any of this; I’ve let it slide for many years precisely because ideas should be allowed to disseminate.
But those ideas could also be easily retrieved from my own website, and from my book.
There is no reason that they have to be posted without citation elsewhere, when they can be gotten from the source in essentially the same form. A hyperlink is all it takes.
If it were not for the fact that the presentation of Trigrammaton Qabalah has changed somewhat since those first charts were made, I would merely ask for citation; but seeing as how certain features have been modified in the light of new research (which I stated in the original email), then I prefer it be removed altogether
You and I have have had plenty of discussions in the past on the subject of TQ, and you always seem to be able to accept a reasonable point of view.
Hopefully you will see that the reasonable thing to do would be to remove the material.
As a compromise, I think it would be fine if the purple-colored charts are removed, and the source for all the hexagram tables be mentioned. That way the more obsolete information is gone, and the more general information is identified as not being the work of the author of the preceding comment. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Litlluw
RLG
Leo,
93
Yes, copyright is about control.There is no dispute there. And a creator is allowed to control the form of their creation.
[my response:] Yes…but we’re not talking about your creation…we’re talking about mine; or rather, my re-creation (per your calculations).
Ideas are beyond ‘control’ – so if you take an idea, repackage it in your own fashion and then promulgate it, there is no problem.
[my response:] That’s basically what I did…I added an appendix so that the reader can see there were other approaches to interpreting the text.
I should be clear that I am not angry about any of this; I’ve let it slide for many years precisely because ideas should be allowed to disseminate.
But those ideas could also be easily retrieved from my own website, and from my book.
[my response:] And I linked your website immediately below the link to the document.
There is no reason that they have to be posted without citation elsewhere, when they can be gotten from the source in essentially the same form. A hyperlink is all it takes.
Again, the hyperlink was on the webpage; with a statement telling the reader that other ideas on this document are available. Eventually (though this is no excuse for not citing the author) the reader would have figured out the appendix was not my writing.
If it were not for the fact that the presentation of Trigrammaton Qabalah has changed somewhat since those first charts were made, I would merely ask for citation; but seeing as how certain features have been modified in the light of new research (which I stated in the original email), then I prefer it be removed altogether
[my response:] And you’ve deprived the reader of seeing this development…I empowered the reader; at least in this instance.
You and I have have had plenty of discussions in the past on the subject of TQ, and you always seem to be able to accept a reasonable point of view.
Hopefully you will see that the reasonable thing to do would be to remove the material.
[my response:] No, I don’t…it would have been much better to have received a note from you; again, telling me that I failed to insert the citation…AND…that the work has progressed since the version I had in the appendix. This might have generated dialogue and comradery….you preferred to “one-up” me and implied a threat. Remember copyrights are ultimately enforced by violence and/or destruction…my first movement was to protect myself from yet another affidavit that forces my web provider to take down my website. My anger was quite justified!
As a compromise, I think it would be fine if the purple-colored charts are removed, and the source for all the hexagram tables be mentioned. That way the more obsolete information is gone, and the more general information is identified as not being the work of the author of the preceding comment. Does that sound reasonable to you?
[my response:] And still you insist on control.
93/93
pj
[my response:] And as a curiosity…I see you’re reading through all the documents on my website…are you reading these to learn of my ideas…or to search for possible copyright violations…like most other Thelemic idiots.
93
Dwtw
In answer to your question, I had an inquiry from a gentleman who wanted to know about my Greek Tarot Translsation, and I was curious where he found it. A simple google search led me to your site. I haven’t the time nor inclination to go ‘looking for copyright violations’.
To impugn me by calling me a Thelemic idiot is completely uncalled for. You remind me of the type of person who cuts you off on the freeway and then gets mad when you beep at them.
The simple fact is, I noticed a copyright violation on your site, YEARS AGO, and am finally asking you to rectify it. Your hostility to me is completely unnecessary.
You spout platitudes about intellectual freedom and liberty, yet you want to deny someone the freedom to create in the form they so choose, without having it appropriated by someone else. Then you get hostile when you are called out on it.
You seriously misunderstand the Law of Thelema if this is your attitude. I don’t care to debate with you about the various aspects of this matter. You’ve made your position very clear.
And if you have the nerve to publicly post my private emails to you, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, then I suggest you remove those emails immediately.
No, I don’t suggest it, I demand it, because it is not my will to make this a public discussion.
I intended to be civil about the whole thing, and gave you the benefit of the doubt that I was dealing with a gentleman and a brother in the A.A. I can see that my assumptions were unrealistic.
Good day to you sir. I have nothing further to communicate.
litlluw
RLG
In answer to your question, I had an inquiry from a gentleman who wanted to know about my Greek Tarot Translsation, and I was curious where he found it. A simple google search led me to your site. I haven’t the time nor inclination to go ‘looking for copyright violations’.
[my response:] Good for you!…it puts you on a higher plane than many Thelemic idiots.
To impugn me by calling me a Thelemic idiot is completely uncalled for.
[my response:] I didn’t call you a Thelemic idiot…I asked if you were behaving like the Thelemic idiots that routinely attack me.
You remind me of the type of person who cuts you off on the freeway and then gets mad when you beep at them.
[my response:] So…you misread, find insult and stoop to the same low level while claiming superiority…interesting.
The simple fact is, I noticed a copyright violation on your site, YEARS AGO, and am finally asking you to rectify it. Your hostility to me is completely unnecessary.
[my response:] You obviously don’t see the threat you carried with your post…did you not read that part of my email?…I made it plain.
You spout platitudes about intellectual freedom and liberty, yet you want to deny someone the freedom to create in the form they so choose, without having it appropriated by someone else. Then you get hostile when you are called out on it.
[my response:] Again…as I said in a previous post…I have never said or done anything to delimit your creative freedom; quite the reverse…you want/wanted me to alter my creative product as that part of your work that I included had evolved and though I still found value in your old work and you no long did…so you by threat, sought to alter my work. As a matter of fact, I had no knowledge that your work had evolved….without that knowledge, I could not have sought to interfere with your effort. The only one getting between one and his creative product is you against mine.
You seriously misunderstand the Law of Thelema if this is your attitude.
[my response:] Ok…so my daddy’s bigger than your daddy…really…this is tom-foolery…now you want to invoke a straw man and force me to defend my knowledge of the law of Thelema?!…ugh!
I don’t care to debate with you about the various aspects of this matter. You’ve made your position very clear.
Dwtw
“Again…as I said in a previous post…I have never said or done anything to delimit your creative freedom; quite the reverse…
you want/wanted me to alter my creative product as that part of your work that I included had evolved
and though I still found value in your old work and you no longer did…so you by threat, sought to alter my work. “
The portions of my work which you included ARE NOT YOUR WORK!
You are not free to do as you please with someone else’s creation.
Your failure to see that, and your insistence that anyone threatened you, tells me all that I need to know.
I will be blocking your email address, as there is no sense in continuing this discussion.
Litlluw
RLG
[pj note: The whole of culture throughout history has been to build upon the work of others. This is how ideas develop and culture progresses. If one is "not free to do as [one] will with some else’s creation,” then culture cannot evolve. Such sentiment is the sentiment of the “shut up” (cf. Book of Lies, Cap. 89); who would stifle culture and human spiritual development. And so at the end of this dialogue, the self-proclaimed Master of the Temple sticks his fingers in his ears (“I will be blocking your email address”); like the immature child and proclaims: “I’m can’t hear you anymore.” Not only does he try to shut others up…but he shuts himself up as well: into the lonely towers of the Abyss. I thought the Master of the Temple was supposed to have destroyed the elements of the personality.]Set Culture Free
by Joel Poindexter on January 2, 2012
Recently Salon featured an interview with author Robert Levine, entitled “Does culture really want to be free?” Levine has written a new book, Free Ride, on the subject of intellectual property (IP). His subtitle is How Digital Parasites Are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, the thesis of which is predicated on a misunderstanding of property rights and a poor grasp of economics.
In this essay I’ll begin with a brief outline of property rights, explain how IP fails to meet the requirements of tangible property, and refute some of Levine’s other fallacies.
Over time, property rights emerged as a way of mitigating conflict over scarce goods. If there is a finite amount of something, say hammers, it’s possible that at some point conflict over the use of a tool may arise. Establishing property rights, and institutions to enforce those rights and arbitrate disputes, tends to reduce this conflict.
Hans Hermann-Hoppe explains this concept by using the Garden of Eden as an example, where everything is in abundance. However,
outside the Garden of Eden, in the realm of scarcity, there must be rules that regulate not only the use of [property] but also of everything scarce so that all possible conflicts can be ruled out (emphasis in original).
If there are an infinite number of hammers, or a device exists to infinitely reproduce them, then the problem of scarcity disappears, along with the need for property rights. Intellectual property is not a scarce commodity. Whether it is the design plans to a rocket engine, the arrangement of musical notes, or the pixels of a digital image is immaterial. None of these meet the scarcity requirement to necessitate property rights. Each can be infinitely reproduced, without denying their use by the original owner.
Levine and other advocates of IP rights view reproduction as theft. But theft is not a synonym for duplicate. A key element of theft is depriving the original owner of his or her property, which does not occur when an item is reproduced. Therefore, IP should not have the protection that scarce property enjoys.
In the course of the interview Levine quotes Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor regarding copyright and free speech. “The framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression,” she said. An interesting argument indeed, considering the actual wording from article 1, section 8 reads, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries….” There is nothing in that clause regarding free speech. The history of copyright laws is rooted not only in protection for guilds but also in censorship. So to suggest that copyrights are intended to secure rights to free expression could only be described as Orwellian.
Levine asserts that “copyright laws … create some kind of market for intellectual property.” And he’s right to one extent; they do create some kind of market. The question however is, is it the kind of market a free society would have? Certainly not; there is a market now, but rather than one based on spontaneous order and voluntary trade, it’s one of central planning, which is predicated on coercion.
The market for intellectual property would, and does, exist independent of IP laws. There are no laws that seek to regulate the hat industry in the way that IP laws do music, and yet there remains a vibrant market for headwear. A market is nothing more than two or more individuals exchanging in commerce. There need not be for utilitarian reasons, nor should there be for moral reasons, government regulation of any industry.
Perhaps if the historical record supported Levine’s thesis that government intervention is vital to the culture market we could at least find it plausible. To see that such regulation is not in fact necessary one need only look to the case of book publishing in the United States vis-à-vis England in the 19th century. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine (no relation) did just that while researching for their book Against Intellectual Monopoly, and what they found is compelling.
During this period England had strict laws of copyright while publishers in the United States were free to reprint works from foreign authors. Despite the lack of legal protection, English authors and American publishing houses still found it profitable to contract with one another. In some cases these authors earned more in the United States than they did from royalties at home.
This relatively liberal set of copyright laws allowed books to be published on such a scale that their domestic price was but a fraction of what Britons paid. For example, a copy of Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol was available in the United States for only 6¢, while the same book was available on English bookshelves for almost $2.50. The result of such low prices, as Boldrin and Levine point out, was that literacy rates in the United States were much higher.
We might also ask what explains great classical music. Jeffrey Tucker has noted that it was the absence of IP laws that allowed composers to freely emulate and build on one another’s works. Had IP laws been enforced in the manner they are today we would have missed out on so much of the great work. As Tucker explains, “There would be no progress in culture, ideas, or technology without [copying].”
Concerning the music business, Levine conflates low CD sales with a decline in total demand for music. But CDs aren’t music; they’re just one of many formats. It happens that they’re becoming less desirable to consumers, as the principle of revealed preference has shown. Music downloads and streaming are increasingly becoming the most common media, and live performances are still the most lucrative aspect of the industry.
Many critics of digital downloading point to single-song sales as a terrible thing for artists. But this is only a terrible thing if the artist possesses marginal talent. Most people have probably experienced a time when they heard a song they liked on the radio and bought the CD, only to discover that overall it wasn’t that good. Allowing consumers to buy one song at a time provides musicians an incentive to produce not one or two good songs for radio, but an entire record’s worth of quality music.
Levine says in the interview,
Most online companies rely for their content, and hence for their money, on traditional media companies. If they destroy that business model, it’s unclear what they’re going to have to distribute. If you look at YouTube, eight of the top 10 videos are major-label music videos. If the major labels shrank to the point where they can’t make videos, YouTube isn’t much of a business.
These online companies are only the intermediary between producer and consumer, so it really doesn’t matter who is creating content. Whether the traditional media companies or their business models survive or not, the Internet can still marry supply with demand. As far as clarity of what’s going to be distributed is concerned, we can’t know this a priori regardless of who’s doing the production. Whether it’s a traditional record label or an independent artist using YouTube to market himself, consumer preference will ultimately decide.
It does not follow that, because some of the highest-rated videos are from major labels, YouTube would become irrelevant for the business in their absence. All that shows is that major labels continue to provide the most popular products. If these traditional companies get left behind, there’s still going to be a “top ten” on YouTube. The logical equivalent to his argument would be wringing our hands over Michael Phelps’s eventual retirement from swimming. His departure won’t mean that swimming as we know it will end; there will always be champion swimmers, and, who knows, maybe there’s someone faster out there.
When asked to name the winners and losers following the digital age, Levine declares a short-term victory for the technology sector, and says the losers are large media companies. The long-term loser, he says, is everyone. Interestingly enough, he ignores the group that all of this is meant to serve: the consumers.
It is for consumers that businesses innovate, and artists create. In order to earn a profit, firms look to produce valuable goods; and to put food on the table artists hope to please their patrons. IP laws are nothing more than monopoly grants — and an affront to property rights in real things. In their absence, consumers would have access to more and better goods, because, without IP laws, emulation and improvement are possible.
Levine’s conclusion that anything outside of the current scheme is going to result in the [destruction of the] “Culture Business” is shortsighted. It looks only at “what is seen” while ignoring “what is unseen.” We see that big media and technology companies thrived. We don’t see what could have come about as a result of copying, emulation, and, ultimately, improvement.
Joel Poindexter is a student working toward a degree in economics. His writing has been published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com and the Tenth Amendment Center. He lives with his wife and daughter near Kansas City. See his blog. Send him mail. See Joel Poindexter’s article archives.