Talk:Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).

missing a critical argument

The entry has more than one paragraph that begins with something like "Many libertarians consider " and at the risk of suggesting that you add one I will suggest that the most important one was missed. Thankfully it was covered on the page you gave the link to http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html in the "The Ethical Argument" section. But I think it is too important an aspect of this argument to be missed in the article. I suspect that among the natural rights/property rights libertarians who do not favor intellectual property (such as myself) the main point is that intellectual property is not property at all. It is not a physical thing, not a tangible object. Most theories that support property rights assume the property is material. The material aspect of property is critical, it makes clear the aspect of possession. Since information itself is not possessed except by means of the physical property on/in which is contained, it is not property in and of itself. It is too ethereal to be covered by the same theories of physical property rights. --jszostek

I concur. Chally 10:54:14, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

"Privileges such as copyright..."

I removed the term "privileges" entirely from the introduction of copyrights, patents and trademarks in this context, because its use was not neutral. The article is about the debate over whether intellectual property issues govern rights or privileges, and what the meaning of that distinction is. Therefore, "Privileges such as copyright," etc., became "Copyrights," etc. Additionally, a term such as "copyright privilege" is in itself a non-sequitur. Chally 10:52:37, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

Doesn't the word "privilege" have a different meaning in legal contexts than it does in everyday usage? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not practicing what they preach?

Why does http://mises.org/books/against.pdf have a copyright notice on it? Simultaneous movement (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That paper isn't an official position of the institute itself, it's the opinion of an author who had to agree to the institute's terms (including copyright) when getting published. The site itself links to this license and is "reasonably liberal with reprint permissions", so that may have been enough to satisfy the author. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article maybe

This article has no secondary sources to show that anything here is notable. Right now it is like a high school essay. The whole thing violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. I went looking and found no reliable secondary sources... am thinking about nominating this for deletion. It is not clear the editors here even understand IP rights. The discussion about Reason etc "copyrighting" their articles is just silly. In the US copyright automatically adheres, the moment that an author creates a work. You will notice that Reason has the circle-c symbol =- all that means is that they are informing readers who owns that automatic copyright. This allows them to prevent others from plagiarizing their work or making extensive use of it without their permission - they can get an injunction but they cannot get money, if they ever want to bother doing that. They have not registered the copyright (that would be the circle-R symbol) which would take effort and money and interacting with the government.. and this is what would entitle them to sue for money damages. If folks who care about this topic (I care about IP, I like libertarianism, but I care about other wiki topics more than this) can find secondary sources and get this in shape I won't nominate this for deletion. But right now that is what it deserves. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right to tag the article as essay. But it does have WP:POTENTIAL. Go ahead – WP:BB – and clean out the BS. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lysander Spooner?

Shouldn't Spooner's views on intellectual property (being that he spoke out for the concept) be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.213.1 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of balance

This article currently ascribes pro-IP libertarian views to Ayn Rand, while ignoring contemporary pro-IP libertarians. For this article to present a comprehensive view, there needs to be a balance, correcting the skew towards the anti-IP crowd. Yadojado (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]