Neal's Workshop

Patri Friedman lays out a "practical argument" against intellectual property rights protection over at Catallarchy. Patri's analysis deals with the topic of IP protection in an even-handed manner and is worth reading.

I am a[n] [il]legitmacy-of-IP n00b, thus I found some helpful arguments in Friedman's post as well as the accompanying comments (H/T to "Constant").

What I gleaned from the Catallarchist's post as well as other IP rights writings previously read (Such as those from Kinsella) is that the arguments against intellectual property revolve around a few central ideas:

• Are IP rights worth protecting if such protection necessitates the intrusive and coercive enforcement of "consensual crimes" by government?
• A definining characteristic of property is that it is scarce. Ideas are not scarce; therefore, they have a defining differentiating characteristic to tangible property. Therefore, different rules apply. Asked as a question: if property is infinitely reproduceable, can it be justifiably monopolized? What if such monopolization requires coercive acts?
• If justifiable claims to intellectual property really exist apart from government intervention, when human beings exchange information, are they morally obliged to compensate the sources of any information they proffer? What if one composes an idea that is founded on some prior concept? Does that individual owe a royalty back to the original creator? For example, do English-speaking individuals have a moral obligation to pay royalties to the varying creators of the English language? What about paying dues to the original creator(s) of the alphabet? And wasn't the idea of a letter merely a throwback to Hieroglyphs? Should we be paying royalties to the ancestors of ancient Egyptian priests? If you find this notion absurd, how do you reconcile such absurdity to the present day idea of intellectual property?
• And finally: How could one claim property in something that, once transferred, could never be repossessed?

Contributions, questions and criticisms on the IP debate are welcome.