market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with much stronger or a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cons report. i have some good news through tonight you are not hiring in fact because it is morally wrong to use the force of government to impede the free flow of ideas you have the right to copy music movies text software inventions and i was speaking of ideas with copying we have bestselling author and president of soldiers jim wallace here the president gave a speech today about political reform you can reform human rights and nonviolence and apparently meant to keep a straight face while doing it well get jim's take on that and stuff and console us even console a little progress and he joins us from houston texas to tell you how to beat back the twisted logic of intellectual property but that won't stop the government from

imposing a twisted morality of stifling innovation on you to make you feel bad for copying things that big corporations don't want you to profit well tough because the internet is here to the rescue and so is adam vs the man. before we get back to the issues of piracy we have some government i receive to discuss and join me now is our guest jim wallace a bestselling author of public the olden speaker and outspoken commentator and recently served on the president's advisory council on faith based and neighborhood partnerships and currently serves as the chair of the global agenda council on faith for the world economic forum. his latest book is rediscovering values on wall street main street and your street

a moral compass for the new economy his two previous books the great awakening reviving faith and politics in a post religious right america and god's politics why the right gets it wrong the left doesn't get it which i read for grad school by the way we're both new york times best sellers and he's president and c.e.o. of soldiers were he is editor in chief of sojourners magazine which has a combined print media readership of more than two hundred fifty thousand people jim thanks so much for being with us tonight and to be here some people have to read my books or. of all of the books i read for grad school it was one of the most ungated i did certainly appreciate that and we're going to we're going to get we'll talk to a quote from here later but let's let's start with with foreign policy because you've really been a respected consistent principled religious voice against obama's foreign policy of imperialism what is it from your religious orientation that tells you these words are morally wrong. well i enjoyed his cairo speech the principles the vision

was great strong but i know that in egypt it took a whole new generation of. protesters to remind us of our democratic values. because not just obama every ministration for a long time had preferred stability to democracy in the middle east now a new generation reminding us that we have these values like. human rights and participation and i don't mock or see over fuel oil regimes that have always violated their values so i'm hoping that obama listens to. a new vision and it's rising here from the streets it isn't about talk or see or theocracy but is about democracy so it's not just obama it's our foreign policy consistently as well because those desires for stability have usually been cover story desires for

keeping regimes in place that are going to serve america's corporate ties government interests but specifically what of your religious right and when you when you look at the wars how does your religious background influence when you look at the acts of violence you look at massive occupations you look at the wasteful spending in iraq and afghanistan well what ones do you see that's how do you evaluate that based on the faith well to start wars on the basis of things that aren't true is not usually a good moral thing to do ok so the war is based on false promise and fair fabrications are not just wars and a war in afghanistan is going on now for ten years it has failed and the costs are so high and human cost to american lives the cost to so many lies in afghanistan we don't even know how many innocent lives and the financial cost if you figure out patrice that we have one hundred. activists on the ground in a bastion. one hundred billion dollars here so it's

a billion dollars for every activist terrorist in afghanistan and we're not even funny ok right so this war has failed it's cost is too high we need a responsible exit now ok well we heard the speech from obama they've got a clip from that i want to share with you to get your reaction straight that we had the chance to show that america values the dignity of the street vendor in tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. if that's true then we do we do we value that as obama's policy reflect he said we have a chance to show that we do every not been you know we have a chance to show we have not been a street vendor in tunisia should know that we value the raw power of dictators over him for a long time not really present foreign policy for a long time but he's right we have a chance to turn the page i hope we do hope we do this this this movement now this

this egypt moment in tunisia now the rest this is a this is a watershed this is a this is a game change is a generational sort of transformation here and stability has left the house ok i want to read a quote from from the book it's not a quote from you actually but from. eugene your sense of the message and he wrote religion is the most dangerous spend energy source known to humankind the moment a person or government or religion or organization is convinced that god is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project anything goes the history world wide of religion fuelled hate killing and oppression is staggering the title of the book god's politics your blog god's politics you're politically engaged how do you avoid that as an accusation about what you're doing when you take political positions you know that's a statement people expect from the new atheists you know i've always thought the

people of faith have to be toughest religion when it has been abusive certainty and sort of reflection once we're doing tolerance and all the things that were talked about their religious faith because it was too deep so reflection and the challenge politics and also it went when the values of faith are vitally and so there is no religious right is left there are to be a prophetic faith and a challenge is all those things in a certain. first of active that well is open to the obama is living up to the faith that he prefers it's a perspective that views the world through your eyes and pour some very simple the people at the bottom should get or intentional more of them those top well if that's the standard then i have to say given the current state of the economy and obama's policies he's certainly not living up to that well. we've not seen any ministration prioritize yet. that perspective of looking

at the world as the port no my hope is in my prayers and my insistent good citizens will bomb it was that for example what resigning to the white house some really good conversations we formed a circle of protection from the faith community i mean all of us about poor involved people and the programs to sustain them and they should be off the table and these budget debates off table i assume i would just make the case that will you know that all of the system that's behind making those programs possible actually ends up making things worse for the disadvantaged america bumps us all the time we have jim thanks so much for joining us live here at and will appreciate that was jim wallace president c.e.o. soldiers and author of several bestselling books most recently rediscovering values on wall street main street and your street and moral compass for the new economy.

this is a pirate this is blackbeard the pirate. in case you couldn't guess this is red beard the pirate. and this of course is a modern smaller pirate but this is an intellectual property pirate. one of these is not like the other can you guess which unfortunately for you freedom loving individuals. yes you the government wants you to think that you're really more like one of these

guys i see in the past and oh in somalia pirates would pull their vessels alongside their targets jump on board see some goodie and make off if they were intellectual pirates. right what they would do would be pull their vessels alongside their targets observe the latest fashions of the day listen to what songs the other sailors were singing and then take off seeing those songs and desperately recovering their clothes to be sure to be seen only in the most dashing fashion of the day sadly for victims of intellectual piracy of this kind and the days of blackbeard on the high seas there was little legal recourse available after such dastardly things but senator patrick leahy just introduced the protect ip act and in this case there's

a fancy acronym behind the name protect ip actually stands for preventing real all online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property this bill would give the in justice department headed by dangerous dog attorney general eric holder new powers to pursue road websites that offer access to unlicensed copyrighted materials or knock offs of brand name goods. not only does this bill give the government unprecedented power such that websites it offers to whore out the violence of government to anyone claiming intellectual property rights by giving them the power to sue websites and here's how that works this bill creates specific new grounds for someone to sue a website simply on the basis that it is promoting the distribution of unlicensed copyrighted material so your blog where you posted that youtube video you know with

the remakes of the you know. you have. now you can be sued and shut down for that even if somehow you're not a spammer living in your parents' basement you can afford the obscene legal costs a bit such a case on some kind of fair use grounds your website can be set down because once a suit is initiated the plaintiffs the sewer can ask the court to issue an injunction or a restraining order to shut down your site the really sick thing about this is that it perpetuates the orwellian language by the very concept of intellectual property the first place protecting economic creativity. using the violence of government to him plead the free flow of ideas can only harm creativity of any kind this bill as all intellectual property rights legislation is done in the guise of protecting creators actually shifts power to the corporations that buy intellectual property

rights from artists and then uses the power of government to force people to pay if they want to use ideas that are own by those corporations and surprisingly your brave upholders of justice the law to be eric holder's forty two state attorneys general have voiced support for this bill and it is also supported by surprise surprise the motion picture association of america and studios in unions they sent a letter to the leaders of the senate house judiciary committees calling for legislation to quote disrupt the counterfeiting and pirate business model by cutting those sites off from the american marketplace kish this is what we need to do when the economy is suffering cut people off from the american marketplace thanks government but it could get worse another bill was introduced last week that would make illegal streaming of copyrighted content a talent there were these dinosaurs can't stop the internet without sudden it down and you know we get to do when the government shuts down the internet right we have

to shut down the gov. not for fun certainly not because. there's a. joke cut. through what i'm. going to. reply . ok so i had more to do is shutting down the government in egypt and intellectual property but i've just died for to use the play that clip ok like that when we come back i will be unveiling my new personal amendment to the us constitution the bill of copyrights because you have the right to copy ideas no one can claim to own an idea and it is morally repugnant to use the government to impede the free flow of ideas waltzes abound in all it will probably arise where stuff stephen can sell it will give you all the ammo you need to shoot down the bad ideas behind intellectual property so you know you're watching out of vs the man you're probably out.

for. folks. where we are really bored. and yet. you know sometimes just a story and it seems so. you think you understand it and then you glimpse something

else you hear see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry. there is a big. article one section eight clause eight of the united states constitution known as the copyright and patent clause or the intellectual property clause empowers the united states congress quote to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries there are a couple of things the american founders got wrong in the constitution one was slavery the other was intellectual property i am an abolitionist for both

the sick part of government created intellectual property the twisted logic behind this clause securing exclusive rights that is allowing someone to pimp out the force of government to stop others from using their ideas does not promote the progress of science and useful arts. in fact it does just the opposite the very concept of intellectual property is a fiction a scam and it flies in the face of real property rights they are diametrically opposed if you own physical property and you want to copy music on your computer or write down something else out in a notebook or carve a stone into a wheel you don't owe anybody for the use of certain ideas that you have used your own real property to recreate the creator of ideas can choose how ideas are shared but only once after that the only way to control the idea the way the ideas will flow is to use the government to violate the real property rights of others but

perhaps the most offensive part about ip is how it shifts the focus from innovation . for stopping innovation in a true free market by definition devoid of intellectual property as the world was for millenia until relatively recently historically speaking the focus is on that next idea if you want to compete stay ahead you have to be the most creative you have to stay on the cutting edge that's what is rewarded in the financial incentive for innovations the same as it is in industries today but aren't subject to ip you wouldn't say that the fashion industry lacks innovation can you imagine a world in which the cut of your clothing is patented if only levi strauss were allowed to make jeans of someone else tried levi could send police to step down their operation or food where chefs couldn't copy recipes or if you try to make an omelet as seen on t.v. you have to pay royalties to emeril lagasse as for inventions that require massive

research and development without intellectual property the ideas are allowed to go to those most efficiently capable of using the ideas to produce the goods people want to consume but what about the inventors this would mean you can't come up with one idea file a patent and sit back and collect royalties which means this would open up the field to everyone and make things more competitive and to make money as an inventor you would have to be good enough that people would want to support your next idea which is essential to corporations today do when they co-opt the best inventive minds into their labs and claim to own the ideas produced there same is true of software development open source all the way baby working on code in the sequestered way dictated by intellectual property means that you have to cut off the potential for collaboration. in the media today the ravages of ip are plain to see look at the consolidation of power in the music industry how much better would

our lives be if everyone who made music was making it for the love of innovation and what we were able to hear wasn't decided by radio stations and record labels same with movies who says we have to have so much power concentrated in hollywood taking away their corporatist advantage would democratize the industry and you know what forget the government who we have with the internet is the perfect tool for a work around and those dinosaurs desperately clean to the government imposed the idea of monopoly are going to stink anyway there are no really new ideas under the sun and as a creator of intellectual property myself i can't take credit for anything i've produced now besides the fact that there are so many other people involved in this t.v. show but every new idea is the product of all human innovators that have gone before us we see further and invent more only because we stand on the

collective shoulders of the giants of human history that have propelled the story not by hoarding their ideas but by sharing them through those of you who are true creators of ideas is extremely arrogant of you to claim ownership of those ideas behind beyond the perhaps one percent contribution that you have made for the innovation of zero of those who've gone before you but i for one will never claim intellectual property on anything i produce because it is immoral to do so preventing people from copying ideas prevents them from improving on them personally i hope that ideas that are present here are taken and accelerated by you the viewer copied on youtube we're up to facebook share with your friends and family discussed in your community. after all they're not really my ideas in the first place so i'm here by announcing my personal amendment to the us

constitution the bill of copyrights because it is morally wrong to use the force of government to impede the free flow of ideas as a free human being you have the right to copy music you have the right to copy movies you have the right to copy text and you have the right to copy ideas in every form they may come to you because the free flow of ideas is essential to human progress and happiness and you also have a right to define and resist any attempt to take your real property rights in the name of the dangerous fiction commonly referred to as intellectual property joining now from houston texas is stephen can sell a senior fellow at the little von misses institute with over seventeen years patent law experience he taught ip law as an adjunct law professor at south texas college of law and is the author of several books most relatively against intellectual property rights or when the earth was thought to be flat saying it was round seemed

silly but now we laugh at people who say that the world is flat i don't know any good if i did i would laugh at them and similarly it has become common knowledge that intellectual property is necessary somehow the government violence is an essential part of creating new ideas but seven disagrees and has spent years in the trenches defeating the silly arguments behind ip they so much for joining us tonight and i can't believe i screw up your name three times already in the course of the sub sewed but something can sell it from houston texas thank you so much for joining us tonight i'm glad to be here adam i'll stand now you've got a lot of experience you've been in the trenches you've been dealing with these arguments so i would let's let's just go through one hit these here what do you say to people who say that intellectual process internal intellectual property is necessary for inventors to innovate and artists to create. well that's a propaganda line put out by the pro ip interests obviously it's quite obviously

false the modern ip laws only a couple of hundred years old and before that we of course had plenty of innovation and artistic creation we had shakespeare the classical works of art we had. the great classical music. you have thought of how history just kind of blows that one out of the water right off the bat doesn't it it's clearly not necessary in fact the government is good at doing only two things and i'm aware of is good at destroying and it's good it bamboozling people into thinking it's necessary it's not good at doing anything else so it's really not going to be good at encouraging innovation ok all right so what about people who say that this patent system is necessary to protect the small inventors the individual creators from the big corporations out there that would they would take that intellectual property and exploited and use it for their own profit. well it's just simply false i mean most small inventors and small companies well most small inventors are employed by large companies and as part of their employment agreement they assign all of their intellectual property over to the employer opi to work for hire or under

a similar doctrine like that so the employer owns it anyway. and what actually happens is a matter of fact is these large companies acquire large arsenals of patents and then what they do is they pretend to sue each other and then they they rattle their sabers and they back down they sign some kind of big cross licensing agreement so you'll have two large companies will sue each other or threaten to sue and then they'll sign a deal where they can each use each other's patents so basically they have these patents that they never really use except to get permission to use the other guy's patents but big little guys on the outside don't have any large arsenals of patents to bargain with so basically the patent system rights barriers to entry helps companies grow larger and it makes it much more difficult for smaller companies to enter the playing field of his r. i know this goes back to maybe endorsing some kind of property concept to ideas in the first place but a lot of people in the in the world today in america even libertarians are still kind of stuck on this concept and they were they would come to you with

a question but property rights capitalism a sense so what you're doing here by saying that we should have intellectual property is socializing ideas how do you spawn of that well calling something property doesn't make it property i mean most people nowadays with think you have a property right in your social security payments or in your welfare income or in a right to an education actually the work property is only a fairly recent innovation used to apply to patent copyright for propaganda purposes this is explicitly admitted by even defenders of ip they used to be called what they were they were censorship and they were monopoly grants of privileged patent originated in the sixteen zero nine statute of monopolies and copyright originated seventeen ten in. in a copy or a statute in england as well when the purpose was censorship and the impediment to the spread of ideas now i know that as sort of this next one for myself at least but for that we have a lot of creative people in our audience with

a lot of young people we have a lot of people that are making music that are making videos every day that are out writing stuff on the internet various levels of claiming intellectual property but without the government protecting intellectual property how are they supposed to make a profit. well there's a few things here first of all government doesn't really protect intellectual property that well there's a lot of types of intellectual creates a good lawyer there are left out you know mathematical algorithms or physics ideas or fashion designs or perfect smells or even certain business and if it's in models which are all creative and help create wealth. but you know but the basic idea is that the government comes in and they assume this role took two to regulate this area and they make people rely on it now but the truth is you know it's not the government's job to tell you how to make money off of an idea one way you could do it is to petition the government for a monopoly grant which protects you from competition but that is not the free market basically the government should at the most regulate private property rights

and let people come up with ideas ok we heard about the protect ip at senator lee this introduced kind of scary the ability that the government taking on to help other people stuck on websites on pretty tenuous grounds you know a lot of people are saying that with the internet because it's raising so many issues about intellectual property when the cost of copying an idea the cost of replication is approaching zero here how do you think that intellectual property rights are meeting the internet to me it seems like the internet is literally killing the notion by simply overpowering the ability to stop the free flow of ideas when you think about what you think of google's response to the protect ip act i think google's response to the it was great which more companies would come coming defensively we need to realize that stopping the use of ip to you know to constrict the flow of information on the internet is important to keeping the internet free the internet is one of the most important tools of freedom in our

lifetime and we have to keep it free of government regulation and that includes all these outrageous insane and in unjust uses of copyright law and other government laws like gambling in child porn to is an excuse to regulate what people. do on the internet well seems like it's a losing battle anyways fortunately and really person to come in and i thank you so much thank you that was stephen can sell out a senior fellow at the lid with yvonne mrs institute and that's our show tune in tomorrow for a special friday show with jake negative neo-con at nancy deliberate oh please check out and verses the man not to go on guessing toddlers and finally on facebook and twitter as always you can e-mail me at am versus the man dot com and catch this broadcast live there is that argue for usa and i. will always say. i made it through an entire episode about piracy without saying.