Alan G Isaac wrote:
> My sense is that modern libertarians oppose patents but 
> support copyright.  I am thinking of Rothbard
> (e.g., <URL:http://www.ccsindia.org/lacs/7patents_copyrights.pdf>)
> but in the software arena I suppose one might also think of
> the higher profile Richard Stallman.

Richard Stallman proposes a method to find the "right bargain" in the
spirit of the USA constitution, but IMHO he suggests quite strongly in
his writings that in the end the right bargain will be no copyright
because freedom is always more important (see below). Of course given
current legal and political environment I strongly doubt Richard
Stallman want to appear as wanting to end copyright even if he thinks
it's the right thing to do anyway (I don't know what he thinks
of course I can only guess from his writings :).

High profile thinkers close to libertarians have taken
quite clear position against intellectual property including
both copyright and patents. Milton Friedman wrote to the supreme
court to oppose copyright extention and said this:

http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/friedman/friedman4.html
<<
Q: Intellectual property rights are under attack. Could you dwell a
little on that?

MF: The question of intellectual property rights is very complicated.
Freedom of speech is the opposite of copyright, which means that you
can't get copyright rights. And, intellectual property is different from
physical property: in both cases, you have a monopoly but the monopoly
on intellectual property is wholly different because duplicating the
property comes generally at a very low or zero marginal cost. You are
enforcing a monopoly pricing, as it were, that limits output to lower
than the optimum social level. You cannot be in favor of infinite
copyright. Essentially it's a problem of practical compromise, whether
you have 17 years, 25 years, 10 years, 50 years.
>>

Friedrich von Hayek is even clearer:

<<
Just to illustrate how great out ignorance of the optimum forms of
delimitation of various rights remains - despite our confidence in the
indispensability of the general institution of several property - a few
remarks about one particuilar form of property may be made. [...]
        
The difference between these and other kinds of property rights is this:
while ownership of material goods guides the user of scarce means to
their most important uses, in the case of immaterial goods such as
literary productions and technological inventions the ability to produce
them is also limited, yet once they have come into existence, they can
be indefinitely multiplied and can be made scarce only by law in order
to create an inducement to produce such ideas. Yet it is not obvious
that such forced scarcity is the most effective way to stimulate the
human creative process. I doubt whether there exists a single great work
of literature which we would not possess had the author been unable to
obtain an exclusive copyright for it; it seems to me that the case for
copyright must rest almost entirely on the circumstance that such
exceedingly useful works as encyclopaedias, dictionaries, textbooks and
other works of reference could not be produced if, once they existed,
they could freely be reproduced.
        
Similarly, recurrent re-examinations of the problem have not
demonstrated that the obtainability of patents of invention actually
enhances the flow of new technical knowledge rather than leading to
wasteful concentration of research on problems whose solution in the
near future can be foreseen and where, in consequence of the law, anyone
who hits upon a solution a moment before the next gains the right to its
exclusive use for a prolonged period.
>>
in The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, 1988 (p. 35)

So my conclusion is that? modern libertarians oppose patents and
copyrights. 

And I must admit I cannot see clearly how it could be otherwise given
how huge the state intervention in the economy is in the name of
intellectual property and that it's all directly against
libertarian-wanted things like real "free trade" and freedom in general
and of expression in particular. If you allow the state to implement
intellectual property, there are probably way too many other things
that would be legitimate for the state to do for libertarians.

Sincerely,

Laurent Guerby



http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
<<
[...]
Copyright in the U.S. Constitution
When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were
entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed ? and rejected. The
founders of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is
not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to
them for the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a
copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):

        [Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of
        science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to
        authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
        writings and discoveries.
        

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means
benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in Fox Film v.
Doyal, the court said,

        The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in
        conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits
        derived by the public from the labors of authors.
        

This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not required by the
Constitution, only permitted as an option ? and why it is supposed to
last for ?limited times.? If copyright were a natural right, something
that authors have because they deserve it, nothing could justify
terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more than
everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse of
time from its construction.

[...]
What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a
bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public
interest above all. The government's duty when selling the public's
freedom is to sell only what it must, and sell it as dearly as possible.
At the very least, we should pare back the extent of copyright as much
as possible while maintaining a comparable level of publication.

Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive
bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it?

One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and
observe the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in
publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really
necessary to achieve the public's purposes. We must judge this by actual
observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because they have
every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if their powers
are reduced in any way.


[...]
Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can check,
and proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask you to
accept one thing on my word alone: that authors like me don't deserve
special power over you. If you wish to reward me further for the
software or books I have written, I would gratefully accept a check ?
but please don't surrender your freedom in my name.
>>