A Light from Monticello

Lest you think all this some newfangled notion of mine, allow me to call an older witness. Thomas Jefferson – who, mind you, sat on the very board that granted the first American patents – wrote to Isaac McPherson on the 13th of August, 1813:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813 (The Founders’ Constitution)

A loaf of bread, once eaten, is gone; a candle flame, once shared, is two flames. That is the whole difference between the things of Earth and the things of Heaven, and Jefferson saw it by candlelight two hundred years ago. Everything below is, in one way or another, an attempt to take that taper seriously.

“Intellectual Property” is Wicked Nonsense

To people everywhere, and those especially who ponder excellence:

Ideas can’t be stolen, they can only be made real.

Herein I seek to demonstrate the idea of “intellectual property” is childish, false, and wicked.
I may also delve a bit into some implications (such as that the ideas of Copyright, Patent, and other forms of mental slavery should be universally rejected on every level). But first, a little bit of my…

Personal History with Intellectual Property

When I was a child myself, I clung (as do so many children) to many absurd notions. (I also found some true ones, but the point is that a child’s intuition (even at the best?) needs be examined.) Among my disparate assumptions was this concept of intellectual property, or, as a child would have it, “I thought of it first”. I must say, even as a child, this idea, couched in these selfish terms, repulsed me. I believed that there existed some right of an idea’s originator to the products of the ideas implementation, but yelling “I thought of it first!” at one-another was too trite even for me-from-the-past. What good methods and alternatives there were I did not know, but I assumed (with the ignorance and blindness of a child) that there was some civilized method of expressing this concept, and that, as an adult, I would enjoy the privilege and the fruits of my intellectual labor under the protection of the law from all who dared to “steal my ideas.”

Some examples of images I copyrighted, or refused to do so. Not that anyone would want to infringe on this stuff.

As I grew, perhaps in my mid-teens (I have kept no journal of my ideas progression, as the results seemed more important than the process at the time) I began to grow in knowledge of the specificities of these social implementations, namely the Patent and the Copyright (with their many other names denoting subtle shades of separation). I also began to produce such works which could fall under the protection of these systems. I began to put copyright marks on some of the images that I made. This practice spurred me to work through a few implications. None of these systems assured me good return for “good ideas” which I formed. Rather they all, uniformly, worked to actively deny all people use and profit from the things I thought up, in hopes that I would grant such rights when satisfied by compensation. This sat with me uneasily, and I resolved, as much as was within my power, to produce materials that everyone could use and spread free from restrictions. I still believed that IP was “a real thing”, but it now resided in the “kind of a jerk move” region of my consciousness. However, I still assumed that I would, one day, produce a grand idea (either of fiction or practical genius) so profound that I could justify procurement and defense of “my rights” to the idea and its outcomes. Thus, concurrent with my experiments with copyrights, I also left my works un-marked, or even occasionally labeled them with public domain declarations.

As adulthood flourished beside wisdom, so did discussion of these topics on the Internet. Even though I bore some interest in the outcome, I never sought out or quarreled in such hot debates, preferring then to meditate myself on pure ideas, and arrive at some conclusions all my own. Once I had a reasoned stance, I then assured myself, I would go out into the Internet and test it with the arguments of betters than myself. As I have arrived at such conclusions, I have likewise done so. The results are nearly what I could have guessed: I seem to have arrived (surprise surprise!) at similar conclusions to those of Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, and the many other philosophers (libertarian and otherwise) who likewise thought upon these topics. In summary:

“IP” is vicious moonshine.
(not to be confused with “viscous moonshine” which is an entirely separate (though similarly distressing) concept)

This confirmation is a mixed reward, for though I joy in ruminations thus confirmed by those much better than myself, I also am a maker of such products which would normally fall under the “protection” of the IP laws. Thus, by making this my stance, I also alienate myself from the socially approved means of procuring compensation for my labors of the mind. I will explore these implications a little later on, but first I will endeavor to disclose the argument itself which so convinced me that this paupering course is the only one which may be walked with justice at my side. Although these statements have, no doubt, been made both first and better elsewhere, I ask you entertain my own ruminations on this topic of…

The Practical Meaning of Intellectual Property

Property, the concept, is both old and lovely. It implies that there are many objects, some of which are scarce and difficult to find and form, and that the makers or seekers of such objects have the right to hold or give them as they wish. It also broadly praises trade (the non-coerced exchange of property) and piles contempt on theft (coercion in the place of trade). Property is one of the most widespread and successful social concepts, and it pre-exists all known society and indeed all language.

Language, in itself, brings up an interesting point. While the property (the objects of themselves) may be both rare and valuable, everyone who comes in contact with property (either of their own or that of others) makes a copy of it in their mind, as a part of the experience of observing it. Language allows the nearly effortless transmission of these ideas, which in turn allows others to produce or locate similarly lovely objects and thereby multiply good in the world. We see therefore that freedom of ideas increases wealth for all. Stealing property deprives the owner of the property, where “stealing” ideas deprives the originator of nothing tangible.

On its face, the meaning of Intellectual Property is that a person who composes a specific concept has the right to dictate who makes a copy of this idea, and especially what persons implement it into practice. But here we are presented with several problems. If, by our communicating an idea, we permit all others to make copies of it, it would seem to follow that the surest way to stop this replication is to never tell others about it (and forget it yourself as quickly as possible). This is counter-productive, as no one will pay for an idea they have never heard of, and once they have heard it, it is quite impossible to control their ability to disseminate the idea freely, short of using force upon their body. Ruling out (for reasons which (I hope) are obvious) democide, it appears that intellectual property is a self-defeating idea. Those who would enforce it would be better served by secrecy. And, indeed, one presented purpose for the patent laws was thus to aid the spread of such ideas which would normally be hidden far from view, and even lost as time went on. But because (in actual practice) most truly revolutionary concepts are not patented (or at least not successfully by common measure), we see that practice quite agrees with theory in this matter.

But there is a great deal of stock put in this idea, so it must not be this simple. And, indeed, it is more complicated than what I present above.

The design is M.C. Escher’s, recorded in the woodcut “Tetrahedral Planetoid”. He’s long dead, but the original is still under copyright. I made this 3d model as a result of a careful study of a copy of his original, but is the model mine? Or his? Or someone else’s?

When a person experiences an object (either of practical use, or of artistic beauty) their internal copy of this object is not perfect. It is so far from perfect that if one were to attempt a re-creation from raw memory, the resulting product would (most likely) yield the barest of resemblance to the intended original. However, with time, effort, study, and skill, one might craft such a well formed copy that it would be difficult to distinguish from the original. We call this process of intentionally producing an object indistinguishable from a work deemed to be the Intellectual Property of others “forgery.” And thus we see the reason why the IP laws are so enforced despite their flaws, as they are necessary for existence of symbolic currencies (such as are in use by nearly all the globe as I am writing this).

Thus, it becomes clear that IP can not halt production of all copies of a concept, but only the copies of high quality such as could be judged as forgeries. In the past, such forgeries were highly time consuming to produce, and always somewhat flawed. However, with the advent of the many various and cheap technologies (computers and the Internet are chief among them), such copies of works are trivial to make, disseminate, and transmit, to such degree that many works may be objectively indistinguishable from the intentional copies used for distribution. Thus we see that all digital transmission of works protected as Intellectual Property is, in principle, a forgery.

Along with such technologies there have arisen means to poison works so that they need an antidote to be employed for useful purpose, commonly termed DRM (Digital Rights Management), and just as commonly derided.

With such basics set in order please allow me to present a…

Logical Case for the Evil Nature of the Idea of Intellectual Property

As with every stance, this argument rests on several assumptions and definitions. Mine are as follows:

1. Good is that which produces happiness in people, integrated over all people for all time. Bad is its opposite, likewise integrated.
2. Ideas are good only as far as they produce good results when implemented. Likewise, ideas are bad if they produce bad results.

These two assumptions are, I think, quite reasonable and unoffensive to the vast majority of humanity. And from these it follows that the idea “intellectual property” is a bad one. If the connection is not evident to you, please…

Allow me to Demonstrate

The idea of IP has only power to prevent the spread and implementation of other ideas. Its purpose is to limit good ideas (since no one would deign to sell bad ideas) in order to extract a price from those who would, otherwise, freely implement such good ideas and thereby benefit from their results.

This directly results in less happiness for humanity, both in the present and the future, and therefore is bad (see assumption 1 above). Since the result of implementing IP is bad, the idea itself is also bad (see 2 above).

In addition, if the good ideas are constrained, people are then left to use the lesser ones. Effort that would normally result in good production is diverted into poorer channels, further robbing people of the benefit of turning good ideas into practice. Thus the limitation of the spread of good ideas and the action taken on them both detract from human happiness and are a clear and present evil in the world.

A Few Objections Addressed

One may argue that IP may be used to limit the spread of bad ideas, thus increasing the net happiness for all. However, if an idea is bad, it is best prevented by disseminating information about the evil results along with the idea itself. Such ideas (telling of results of other carefully implemented ideas) are broadly termed “science”, and is itself quite strangled by this IP concept. The “Web of Knowledge”, scientific journals, and the like all exist to keep the spread of scientific knowledge to the bare minimum necessary. We should be freely distributing the results of scientific investigations, not squirreling them away. Thus, this purported advantage turns out to result in further condemnation of IP.

One may also argue that, though IP may limit the spread of good ideas, it does so to the advantage of those who create such good ideas (for whom I offer a better way below). May I simply point out (though I hesitate to do so, as it seems to insult the intelligence of my readers) that such an argument equates to the “needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many” and thus if it is not repulsive to your conscience, I despair of attempting to convince you otherwise.

One may further try to justify this practice by proposing that IP encourages production of more good ideas, thus resulting in a net gain for everyone. This I can not directly contradict (and nor can you directly prove), but I hope it is as evident to you as to myself that, far from encouraging innovation, the practice of IP has had the opposite effect, resulting (wherever it is employed) in the stagnation of creativity, the fallow dis-use of otherwise profitable concepts, and the expense of much effort to the purpose of actively thwarting implementation and dissemination of good ideas, all for the profit of a very few at the cost of detriment to all.

A Feasible Alternative to Intellectual Property

Thus, it seems to be that Intellectual Property is conceived by childishness, perpetrated by dis-information, lies, and greed, and useful only for the wicked advantage of the few over the many.

Hundreds view this image every month, and about a quarter download the free 3d model. I have never demanded any compensation for the work that went into making it, and hopefully never will.

But, as much as I would love to exult in this result, it is (as I have hinted formerly) a rather Pyrrhic victory. For, though I delight in the simplicity and power of the case I have presented, it also means that I can never look to society and demand compensation for my intellectual labors without violating my own stated principles. This is especially problematic for me, as a creator, since I work in a broad range of mediums, many of them digital. It seems to put to rest the notion that I could ever find real employment as a creative individual, or indeed accept employment at a company which depends on the IP laws for their existence.

However, this conundrum is not without a minuscule ray of hope. Although I can not demand compensation, or even ask that you cease to distribute “my” ideas, there does appear an alternative. If Intellectual Property (which I reject) is a doctrine of coercion, then I…

Return to Trade

Though ideas should not be restricted after their formulation (because such restriction is (as outlined above) either an act of malice, or admission of deceit) their creators may certainly be paid for the labor of creating them. Whether this price is paid beforehand, or simply agreed to, it is both civil and free from undue restraint by the law. This is the time-worn idea of a commission, and will stand quite well without the artificial props of IP. Such compensation has the advantage (to the consumer) of being limited, as creative persons are paid a limited amount, not the unlimited rewards which current IP laws afford them. This comes with a corresponding disadvantage (to both parties, this time) of requiring trust. The creator may fail to produce a work which merits payment, and the one who pays has no guarantee of satisfaction.

Still, this state of affairs is infinitely superior to granting arbitrary persons who “thought of it first” the right to extort all persons in the future for an indeterminate amount of both time and resources as backed by the violent force of the state.

Thus I ask that you, noble reader, and of your own free will, do consent to support my intellectual efforts, not because I force you, but because it constitutes a beneficial trade for both of us. Conversely, if you are unable or unwilling to contribute, please know that I bear you no ill will and urge you most strongly to enjoy what I produce freely without charge or guilt.

Of course, I would somewhat prefer to call on the State to strong-arm anyone who refused to render me what I think is fair and reasonable, which is why I now make…

A Plea that you Refute this Argument

I beg you, noble reader, if you have any way to convince me otherwise, that you bend your powers to do so. If you know of a way to safely arrive at confirmation of Intellectual Property, both as an idea and a practice, which affirms it as worthy for those of sound mind to practice upon their peers through the use of violent force, I beg of you to make the case… and strongly too! If you have heard even hint of such truths which will enable me to demand (along with rights to individual property) the rights to ideas which I “produce”, I plead with you to tell me of them without delay. As it is, I can not conceive in my current state of mind that such arguments would even exist, let alone be convincing. These conclusions appear to me so inescapable that I find no alternative, actual or hypothetical, which I may at once approve and keep my conscience clean.

As to matters larger than my own personal concerns, I suspect this problematic idea of Intellectual Property surpasses law, and to uproot it will require…

Broad Rejection of “Intellectual Property” by the Global Culture

As long as the idea of Intellectual Property is considered a valid viewpoint at large in the world, our laws and practices will continue to support monopoly and coercion. It is only by absolutely rejecting this concept as evil and childish that we will be able to move forward as a culture and a species, and adopt more fully notions of cooperation and learning which are now so crucial to our burgeoning enlightenment.

We need to stop thinking foolishly. Ideas are not property. Ideas can not be stolen. The hardest part of developing good ideas is not their conception, but their implementation and testing, and the social structures and physical artifacts used to carry out this task are the same as can be used to manufacture the results of good ideas, thus amply rewarding innovators.

There is no useful purpose for this nonsense notion of intellectual property, and we should abolish it as quickly and painlessly as possible.

It brings me no pleasure to point out that, as far as adopting these views on Intellectual Property, Brazil, Russia, India, and China are far ahead of the nations of North America and Europe. While I can by no means condone all of the policies of these nations, I must point out that, in this matter at least, “their” cultures appear to be superior to “ours”. I can only hope that with the rising relevance of these nations (and the cultural mindsets they represent) will come an equal irrelevance of IP laws and enforcement. (A note from 2026: alas, I spoke too soon. China now files more patents than anyone, and the rest have mostly followed the West's lead. Nobody, it seems, is ahead, and the hope must rest on persuasion rather than geography.)

A Few Final Points

A hopeful sunrise over the Pacific

Thank you for considering my arguments. I hope that, whatever your stance and actions, I have stimulated your mind on this matter. And, as I said above, if you have any compelling refutations to these principles, I am eager to adopt them, as it will produce means for my own enrichment, and the enrichment of those of whom I approve.

Sincerely,

Paul Spooner

The Bible and IP

I endeavor below to perform an exhaustive topical study of the matter of IP in the Holy Scriptures.

I have already endeavored to examine (and dismantle) the logical foundations of the idea of Intellectual Property, but before this writing the religious justification or refutation has gone largely untouched.

For this study I will be sourcing exclusively from the KJV translation of the Bible, which you can download for free here. I will be referencing by book, chapter, and verse, and will quote sparing context, as the full text is available and searchable.

But first, I feel it is healthy to address a few of the…

Common Scriptures Referenced in Relation to Intellectual Property

Exodus 20:15 is often quoted as evidence for the validity of IP. However, this argument presumes both that ideas are property and can be stolen. I would say that neither are true, but either way this passage does not enlighten us on the definition of theft. It does, however, bring up a much more interesting point which I will go into further on, as regards both dishonesty and covetousness.

Romans 13 is another common evidence offered, specifically that if the government disapproves of something, it is wrong. However, the passage clearly states things the other way around. If something is right, the government will approve. Far from justifying IP (or any other injustice), this further encourages us to determine and do what is good without fear of the government.

Ephesians 4 is commonly used as another injunction (from the New Testament this time) to not steal, and has the same shortcomings as the Exodus 20 passage, but with an added benefit. It offers an implicit definition of theft! To do good things with one’s hands is offered as the opposite of theft, which has interesting implications. If anything, this too will brace against IP, as demonstrated below.

Of these three preliminaries, two beg the questions of what the Bible says about theft and the mind… So let’s explore that.

How does the Bible Define Theft?

The scriptures do not contain what we would ordinarily recognize as a dictionary. However, the poetic form of much of the old testament is that of similar concepts. In this poetry, like ideas are paired, and unlike ideas are contrasted. Therefore, the books of Job, Psalms and Proverbs may be used to discern the association of various terms. Fortunately, there is a passage in each of these books which speaks to theft:

• Job 5 “Whose harvest the hungry eateth up, and taketh it even out of the thorns, and the robber swalloweth up their substance.”
• Psalms 62 “Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them.”
• Proverbs 21 “The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and fro of them that seek death. The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.”

So we see that the scriptures mean by “robbery” the oppressive acquisition of wealth which belongs to another. If perhaps these passages alone do not convince you, peruse the below for further indications of the meaning of theft in the Bible.

• Exodus 22 “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep… If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.”
• Leviticus 19 “Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another… Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.”
• Ephesians 4 “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.”
• Obadiah “If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, (how art thou cut off!) would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes?”
• Ezekiel 22 “The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.”
• Malachi 3 “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”
• Isaiah 10 “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!”

So much for the general passages on theft. All have to do with physical goods, and none imply copying ideas or representations are in any way associated with theft. Now for a few passages that I found particularly interesting.

The first is from the Old Testament prophets:

• Jeremiah 23 “I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.”

This passage in Jeremiah seems to be dealing with words under the act of stealing! Very pertinent. There are three ways I can see this being interpreted. It is talking about:

1. Lying. Prophets are saying their words come from God when in fact they are just repeating what they heard from their neighbors.
2. Withholding information. God’s word would have come to their neighbors, had the prophets not withheld it.
3. Theft. The neighbors used to have the Lord’s words, but the words are taken away by the prophets.

As interesting as these distinctions are, they mean the same thing for the purposes of our investigation. This passage says that it is stealing when a prophet takes God’s Word away from his neighbors. Put more generally, stealing is preventing ideas (“my words”) produced by party A (“the LORD”) from reaching or being held by party B (“his neighbor”). This is the exact opposite of normal IP phrasing, where “stealing” would be copying ideas from party A and distributing them to party B without compensating party A. So we see in one of the very few cases where the Bible treats ideas as a subject for theft, the example runs exactly against the practice of IP.

Now let’s move to a New Testament example, and something a bit more concrete:

• Acts 19 “Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians… And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.”

Here we have a classic case of defamation which touches very near the heart of the issues of intellectual property. Sculptors are upset because their trade is being devalued by the doctrines of Paul. It is more a case of slander (here written “blasphemers”) than infringement, yet we see that the city official dismisses even this charge. It seems that even loss of profit does not amount to either theft or defamation. As IP concepts are so often championed on the grounds of avoiding lost profit, this seems significant.

Finally, we have three utterances by our Lord Himself, which I will attempt to explore with the proper respect:

• John 10 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” and again, a little later in the same chapter “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy“

This is the first and only passage which I could find that indicated theft not by the outcome, but by the method of execution. The thief and robber is marked not by taking what belongs to another, but by the method whereby he approaches others possessions. Of course, in the same chapter the thief’s goals are revealed. So we see by this passage that – to the owner of the sheep at least – theft, slaughter, and destruction are all the purview of the thief. It seems that the important part is not that the thief gains possession, but rather that the original owner does not retain possession. This goes, I believe, to the heart of the matter.

• Matthew 6 “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.“

Here too Jesus, blessed be His name for His excellent righteousness and love toward us, I say our Lord stresses that decay and theft have similar outcomes, as they take away from the owner. It is better to lay stock in what can not be taken from us (I take this up again below, as the two realms of Heaven and Earth).

I mention too that a great many of the passages on theft which I have omitted are directions to not steal and lie. It does seem significant that lying and false witness are mentioned so often adjacent in the scriptures, but I would attribute this to their clear distinction of subjects, rather than a shared one. Stealing is lying about ownership of physical goods, and lying is stealing the understanding of truth. However, as these passages do little to enlighten our understanding of the terminology, I pass over them for now.

So it seems that the idea of “Intellectual property”, in its present popular conception, is nowhere presented in the Scriptures. A proof by omission is, of course, nearly impossible, so I do not place undue weight on this. Instead I observe that the region associated with theft is wealth, and then move to an examination of the intellect itself, to see if we can find traces of ownership (and therefore the capacity for theft) in such regions.

What does the Bible say about the Mind?

This is a vast topic, and I will not attempt an exhaustive examination here. Instead I welcome you to do your own reading while I resort simply to generalities.

From my reading the mind is a place of joy and grief, plans and hopes, good and evil, memory and forgetfulness, of will and determination, of trust and suspicion, pride and humility.

The mind is most often associated with the error of lies and deceit. Nowhere did I encounter even a hint that one could own or steal an idea.

So much for the mind.

A Few Other Thoughts on IP in the Bible

To arguments in the vein of “this is how everyone does things these days” I respond with Exodus 23:2, a short ways after the famous Ten Commandments. IIRC there are many other passages conveying a similar sentiment, especially in writings of The Prophets.

The scriptures also explicitly call for actions which countermand applying IP attitudes to the Bible. For a major example, see Deuteronomy 6:6-9 where massive and widespread duplication is not only exonerated, but explicitly commanded. And, of course, the translation of the Bible into various languages (including the English version I used for this research) is an example of this mindset at work. The success of the Bible could be attributed (if Divine factors are set aside) in a large part to a lack of intellectual property restrictions placed on it by its Author (or, if you prefer, authors).

In a not entirely coincidental parallel, Jesus speaks on similar matters in Matthew 5:19 essentially saying that the spread and practice of (very specific) good ideas is the work of those “great in the kingdom of heaven“.

In contrast, Jesus indicates in Matthew 8:4 that the beneficiaries of a miracle should not tell anyone except a specific set of officials. While this seems a poor foundation for Intellectual Property as a whole, it is, I think, an interesting observation. It is also interesting to observe that His command is largely ignored.

The apostle Paul, who could have asked for compensation for conveying the special information he received from God, as well as the fruits of his years of meditation on the Scriptures (Galatians 1:18 and 2:1), decided not to do so (1 Corinthians 9, especially verse 18), instead supporting himself through manual labor and encouraging others to do the same (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12). He also recommends that it doesn’t matter how ideas are spread, so long as the idea itself gets out (Philippians 1:18), which runs counter to the modern concept of approved distribution networks.

For things that really need to keep a secret, the scriptures demonstrate the solution I propose above at work in Revelation 10:4. Specifically, if you don’t want people to know about it, don’t tell anyone; Certainly don’t write it down!

What is IP then?

It is simply “a vanity tossed to and fro of them that seek death.”

As far as I can discern, IP is a justification for theft. The practice of Intellectual Property dictates that one person may demand the fruit of the labor of another under the threat of violence. According to all the examples and principles I could find in the Bible, this is oppression and robbery. Worse, it is theft masquerading as the punishment of theft. Therefore, those who uphold this idea are in danger of committing both the errors of stealing and false witness. It is a practice unjust in exercise and unfounded in principle, and thus it is our duty to always and everywhere despise it in whatever form it takes, whether that be copyright, patent, or any other name which thieves give to mask their guilt.

This brings us back to Exodus 20, which illuminates the true motives behind IP; In a word, covetousness. The entire modern idea is a lie founded on envy and used to justify robbery.

Ephesians 4 gives us the alternative, which is to do what is good with our hands. And how do we know what is good? By our own experience, or by emulating the actions of others. So we see that “IP Infringement” far from being theft is instead the solution to theft.

As always, I am interested to hear your feedback on this matter. It may be that I have overlooked a critical passage which bears examination. I doubt that any single evidence may overthrow the weight of the accumulated evidence which I have laid out, but love hopes all things!

God’s blessings on you in your search for truth and justice,
Your servant,
Paul

IP is Inverse Marxism

I've been listening to Jordan Peterson a lot recently. Specifically thinking about the specter of Marxism that he’s afraid will re-assail the world. Here are my thoughts:

There is much in Socialism that is wicked and perverse, and for the greater part I stand with Jordan B Peterson in his rejection of communism, both on the basis of its fruits and of its intellectual bankruptcy. However, there is one (at least) spot in which I have departed from this sage, and it is in the matter of Intellectual Property. For it seems to me that IP and communism are not opposites at all, but the same error walked in opposite directions.

Let me put it in the oldest terms I know. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Two realms, not one. Earth is the realm of things: bread, land, oxen, hammers. What is on Earth is scarce and exclusive; if I eat the loaf, you cannot, and if I give you my ox, I no longer have an ox. Heaven – and here I include the realm of ideas, which sits at least on its border – is the realm of things which may be given and kept at once. If I teach you a song, we both have the song. If I tell you how to build a bridge, I have not forgotten how. Our Lord Himself draws the line in Matthew 6: treasures on earth are subject to moth and rust and thieves, and treasures in heaven are not.

The whole of the trouble, as near as I can tell, is the refusal to admit there are two realms.

Communism treats everything as Heaven. “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Among ideas this is not only possible but nearly automatic; it is simply what happens when people talk to one another. But communism insists on applying it to bread and land and factories, as if physical goods could be shared out without anyone ever accounting for scarcity. They cannot. When you take a physical good from one, they no longer possess it. If you want to give it to someone else, you have to steal it, or at least convince the person to give it up, which – in the case of communism especially – often means to slay them so that they no longer have any hold on it. Bastiat – the economist of France – calls this “plunder”. To take unjustly by force what belongs to another.

Intellectual Property treats everything as Earth. It takes the song, the story, the bridge design, and pretends it is a loaf of bread, as if ideas were as limited and exclusive as physical objects, so that my knowing a thing must somehow deprive you of it. But it does no such thing! Intellectual goods may be given and retained at once; At the same time surrendered and kept. To fence them off as though they were scarce, IP must manufacture the scarcity, and it does so by the very means communism uses on the other side: the violent force of the state.

So here we have the inversion. The communist sees the abundance proper to Heaven and tries to force it onto Earth. The IP advocate sees the scarcity proper to Earth and tries to force it onto Heaven. One denies that bread runs out; the other denies that a song does not. Both deny the duality of Heaven and Earth, and both end in coercion, because reality will not cooperate with either error and must be made to.

I am not the first to notice the two realms. Jefferson saw it plainly enough (see his taper, above). Paul J. Griffiths, following St. Augustine, distinguishes the private things which are owned and used up from the common things, such as mathematical concepts, which all may enjoy without corruption, and he observes that property itself is absent in Eden and in heaven (“The Natural Right to Property and the Impossibility of Owning the Intangible: A Tension in Catholic Thought”). Jeremy Stern, from the Jewish tradition, finds that because thought and intellect are spiritual, the owning of ideas becomes nearly inconceivable (“Spiritual Property, ‘Intellectual’ Property, and a Solution to the Mystery of IP Rights in Jewish Law”). Better minds than mine, all. But I have not seen anywhere the other half drawn: that communism is the same mistake run the opposite way.

And I think this is why socialism, for all its evident wickedness, proves so uneasy to destroy. It keeps leaping out at me! In Dr. Peterson’s lectures. In arguments I hear made in favor of communism. If socialism is so wrong it should be easy to refute. But insofar as the West has accepted Intellectual Property as a valid target for the protection of the state, it has committed the mirror image of the communist error, and so it cannot fully see that error for what it is. A man who insists that ideas are Earth will have a hard time telling another man that bread is not Heaven. Dr. Peterson has said several times that “the academy should reclaim its intellectual property”, and I think that is an error on his part. (As an aside, JBP doesn’t actually appear to believe this should mean restricting access. His making his lectures freely available demonstrates that he believes in some other meaning of “Intellectual Property” than the one that has been enshrined in law in the West.)

The remedy is not to split the difference, but to give each realm its due. Let property, trade, and honest accounting govern the things of Earth. Let the things of Heaven – ideas and, if we may go so far, spiritual goods – be held in common, produced by those best able to produce them, and received by all who need them. Render to Earth what is Earth’s, and to Heaven what is Heaven’s. If we can do that, then I think that we will have achieved a great good.

I’d like to end with a reading from the book of Proverbs Chapter 3. The entire chapter reading can be found at Bible.tryop.com

Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee. Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways. For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous. The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just. Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools.

Proverbs Chapter 3