Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
Since all legitimate authority of the government is derived by delegation from the governed;
and since no one has moral right to force his neighbor not to use information or ideas,
therefore he cannot delegate such authority to his government.
Hence, all patent and copyright laws are hereby and henceforth abolished.
Explanation:
Patents and copyrights violate a fundamental principle of liberty which I call The Benson Principle (please see the link), which basically says that if you have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot delegate such authority to your government to force him for you, because the only legitimate authority the government can have is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. Since patents and copyright laws violate this fundamental principle of liberty they are in fact immoral.
Patents are not only immoral, but also impose huge costs on society as a whole, stifling progress of entire industries.
Copyrights have been historically used, and actually were originated as tools of censorship. As such they are a serious danger to liberty.
For more insights please see this:
The question then can be asked, how is the inventor or artist to benefit by his work? The answer is they can benefit by a wise use of contractual agreements with manufacturers or performers who will enjoy the benefit of FIRST use of the invention or of the art work.
To do anything else is to violate fundamental principles of liberty and thus to inevitably jeopardize the well being, and ultimately the survival of the entire society, and that is unacceptably too high price to pay for an immoral use of government force!
Understanding IP:
Thank you for your efforts to be honest, to do your duty to defend Liberty, and to be a person of integrity. This is why I consider it worth while to share with you my views on IP. I do it with respect for you and with great desire for well-being of our beloved country.
The question of IP (intellectual property) is key in preserving liberty. The current prevailing understanding of it is wrong and fundamentally incompatible with true principles of Liberty. If this error is unchecked all free speech (especially on the internet) will eventually be destroyed; as a result, Liberty will be destroyed; and with it, consequently, the society itself will be destroyed. This prompts me to lay out for you the correct understanding of IP, which is in harmony with the eternal principles of Liberty. Here we go:
The fundamental principle of Intellectual Property is this:
To possess information IS to own it, because, by its very nature, every copy of information is a separate intellectual property, that is independently owned by each one who has it, nor less than he owns his mind, his body, or the medium upon which the information is recorded.
This is the very nature of information that can be easily verified by simple observation.
Therefore, the creator of information owns it, but so does anyone who possesses a copy of the same information.
Thus, intellectual property cannot be stolen, unless it is erased from the memory of the owner. Therefore copying information, in principle, cannot be stealing. You still have your copy. What is “stolen” is the ability to corner the market via an immoral grant of government monopoly on the use of information. Now, here is a key, the government has no right to grant such monopoly, because the only legitimate authority it has was delegated to it by the individuals governed, and no individual has moral right to use force on his neighbor to prevent him from using information or ideas, therefore he cannot delegate it to his government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he himself does not have.
You may ask then, how is the creator of information to profit by his labors? The answer is:
a) to secure a contract of first use, (in case of a movie studio, for example, it can contract with a movie theater chain, to show the movie first),
b) (in case of software) require a paid key to use,
c) In case of performing artist, most successful ones actually make more money by live performances than by CD sales. People come to see them in concert even though they already own their CD’s.
d) In case of inventors: 1) secure contract of first use, 2) be first to market, 3) keep the secret of know-how as longs as you can (which turns out to be much, much lesser impediment to general progress than the patent laws!)
e) use it yourself,
f) rely on donations of grateful users.
Copyrights and patents have their origins in usurpations of kings to impose censorship. The so called “defenders” of intellectual property, are in fact violators of intellectual property of everyone else, because again: to possess information is to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your VCR, your paper, your hard drive or your camera. Since you own all these you have the right to arrange them in any way you wish. To prevent a man from arranging his property in any way he pleases, as long as he is not violating the property of others, is to violate his property (intellectual and tangible). And you are not violating another’s intellectual property by copying it. To argue that by copying it you are preventing him from collecting income he might have had if he was granted monopoly on the use of it, is to argue that by making bread you deprive your neighbor’s bakery from making more money if he had a monopoly. Again, no one can grant such monopoly, because no one has such authority individually, and therefore cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.
These are fundamental principles of liberty, to violate which will lead to the destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself.
The fundamental principles of liberty cannot be made nor unmade by legislators any more than they can legislate away the laws of gravity or of electricity. These are eternal and natural principles, and they exist independent of our understanding of them. Our task, therefore, is to discover them and to live in harmony with them, which will result in maximum Liberty and Prosperity of the people. To ignore them is to gradually succumb to tyranny, and ultimately to destruction of the society itself.
For more information please see The Fundamental Principles of Liberty (it spells out the three fundamental principles without which Liberty, cannot exist, and must unavoidably be destroyed).
Thank you for all you do in the defense of Liberty!
God bless you.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another take:
Quick Summary of Correct Principles of IP
On intellectual property:
This is a very important subject directly connected to the survival and prosperity of this nation, because it is directly connected to Liberty (without which any nation will inevitably self-destruct), which is directly connected to free speech, especially on the internet.
Here are the main points:
Intellectual property has a few major misconceptions in our society:
1) “Information can be stolen even though the author still has his copy.”
That is false because to steal something you must deprive the owner of the use of the thing. To violate a property you must either:
a) alter it,
b) remove it from the possession of the owner, or
c) materially endanger a) or b)
None of this takes place, when information is copied. What can be “stolen” is perhaps i) a secret, or ii) the ability to profit by having exclusive/controlled access to the information. Neither one of these, however, constitute a violation of the authors property if neither (a), (b), nor (c) occurred with regards to the author’s tangible and intellectual property. And since no violation of property occurred, (and no contract has been broken, because there was no contract that the copier explicitly agreed to with the author), no force is justified by the author against the copier, either directly or via a third party such as government.
Here we will give the true definition of what Intellectual Property is:
Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than a COPY of information in one's possession.
Therefore, each copy of information constitutes a separate and independent intellectual property.
This definition is based in the reality and truth of what information IS.
The natural reality of any and all information is this:
TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT, just as much as you own your mind, your papers or your computer, etc.
The author owns it, but so does anyone who has a copy of the information. The author owns HIS copy, and the copier owns HIS copy. They are separate copies, and constitute TWO separate instances of intellectual property, even if it is the exact copy of the other. They are TWO properties, not one. This is the very nature of information, which can be ascertained by a simple and irrefutable observation: each copy of information exists INDEPENDENT of any other copy; even if you destroy one copy, the other copies do not cease to exist. Therefore, once they exist, they are independent. It is a fact. Each one who has a copy owns it just as much as he owns the medium on which it is recorded; he owns the information just as much as he owns his mind, his papers, his camera, or his computer. This is the very nature of information, to deny which is to deny reality of what information is, and to deny the truth easily established by irrefutable empirical evidence.
TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT.
2) “The creator of information cannot profit by his work without government forced monopoly on the use of the information he created.”
That is false, because there are multiple ways for the author to profit by his work without the immoral use of government force to impose a monopoly. They are (in part):
a) Secure a contract of first use with a publisher, performer or manufacturer. Example: a movies studio may contract with a theater chain to show their movie first, etc.
b) In case of an invention, keep the secret as long as you can and be first to market and thus gain economic advantage. (Generally it buys the inventor 6 month to 2 years of natural monopoly, before others can figure out how it was done and swing into production).
c) In case of software, a paid key may be required to unlock the code.
d) In case of a performer use your recordings as an advertisement for your live performances. Most famous artists make most of their money in live performances. People come to see them in concert even though they already own all of their CD’s. Also original paintings may cost millions, even though photographic copies of them are readily available for free. etc.
e) Reap the benefits of using it yourself.
f) Rely on donations of grateful users. For example, even if Stephanie Myers did not have a contract of first use with her publisher (which she does have), but even if she didn’t, most of her grateful fans would have gladly donated $1 each or more if she asked for it, which would probably amount to millions of dollars!
The point here is that such a government monopoly is immoral, because no author has a moral right to use FORCE upon his neighbors to prevent them from using information in their possession, even if it is the exact copy of the information he created. And since he has no moral right to use such violence, he cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf.
3) “The author worked hard to create the information, he deserves remuneration if other people use it, and it will be immoral if they use it without compensating him, therefore force can be used to extract the payment.”
First of all, the author can and should benefit by his work. The proper ways to do so without violating the rights and property of others are listed in section (2).
Secondly, and this is key: Not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force, and not everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform. Giving money to the poor if you can is certainly morally right and good, but it is WRONG to take this money by force, for that would be theft and plunder. It maybe morally right and desirable to give flowers to one’s mother or wife on her birthday, but it is wrong to force such performance by violence. Also it may be morally bad to waste ones talents and to live below ones abilities, but it is WRONG to use violence against such a person, as long as he does not violate the property of others. What is the principle here? I call it The Benson Principle which is also equivalent to the Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor or to violate his property, you cannot delegate such violence to any third party, including government. If you have no right to violate your neighbor’s property, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it for you either.
4) “Implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not require an explicit agreement, exist all over in the society; therefore copyrights are implied contracts, and thus can be enforced by government.”
That is false, because by their nature, implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not have an explicit agreement from all the parties involved, can only be properly imposed upon things that you own, and nothing else. This is because with regards to YOUR own property you do not need an agreement from anyone as to what to do with it. Thus if you own a parking lot you can post a sign “No parking after 10 pm” and you have a right to enforce it without the car owner’s explicit agreement, because you OWN the lot, and you can impose any rules you want UPON IT, and a car owner would be violating YOUR property if he did not use the property as you prescribed. However, if you posted a sign saying: “No parking after 10 pm, but if you do, it will signify that you agree that I own your house, and that you are my slave for 50 years,” and someone leaves his car on your lot after 10pm, can you take his house and make him a slave for 50 years? No! Why? Because you do not own either him nor his house, therefore for such a contract to be binding you have to have an EXPLICIT agreement from him before you can enforce it. Without an explicit agreement, the best you can do is to tow his car, and perhaps charge a fee for your trouble to offset/rectify the violation of your property, and nothing more. Implied contracts do not require explicit agreements precisely because they apply only to the things you own and nothing else.
Copyrights cannot be enforced as an implied contract because you do not own the people who copy your work. You do not own their minds, you do not own their copy machines, you do not own their papers or their computers. Therefore, you cannot impose an implied contract upon these things because you have exactly zero authority/ownership over them. You can only impose an implied contract upon your copy of the information and limit or condition access to IT, because you own THAT COPY; but you have no right or say over the copies owned by others. This is the nature of information. To deny this is to deny reality and to violate both intellectual and tangible property of others, because they own that information no less than you, the author, do, and no less than they own their minds, their papers or their computers. That’s what information is: TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.
This is a brief summary of correct principles of IP, violation of which will lead to the destruction of free speech (especially on the internet), and consequently destruction of Liberty, and consequently the destruction of the society itself.
=====================================
This amendment is a part of 7 amendments that were designed to bring the Constitution into harmony with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot exist:
- Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)
- The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
- Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
- Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation
- No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM)
- Nullification - Constitutional Amendment
- Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
Connect With Us