A recent CNET video on "Intellectual property rights vs. journalism" shows a Stanford University's Innovation Journalism conference on June 7, with a panel discussion by various mainstreamers discussing the quesion "Is intellectual property protection a threat to journalism?" The lack of libertarian principle and sound economics has these commentators floundering as they discuss various cases where IP infringes free speech and freedom of the press. Lacking any principled approach they retreat to legal positivism, talking about how the Constitution protects both freedom of the press and speech as well as IP rights, so some "balance" must be made. Without Austrian economics and libertarian principle, even well-intentioned people, who sense that something is wrong, are helpless before the state's propaganda and onslaught of legal positivism.

But how many of them, despite realising that there's something fundamentally awry, will reject any coherent explanation?

This notion of 'balance' is offensive, much like it would be to a slave when it is suggested there must be a balance between their right to liberty (suspended in the national interest) and the right of their owner to exploit their property.

One of the 'rights' is not like the other. One of them is a privilege and an instrument of injustice.

We need a rapid copyright deprogramming dossier that anyone with a sufficiently open mind can work through step by step and at the end of it, obtain the Eureka epiphany of enlightenment.