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,