Ready for review.

We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that limit freedom of action in order to protect our safety and a democratically determined social order. We'd like to believe that our thoughts can't be restricted. Maybe we could accept a limit on what we can read or hear -- if only rarely, when needed to keep us safe from our darkest fears, terrorists, child pornographers, identity thieves.... But, our sense of freedom recoils from the notion of the state imposing and enforcing limits on how we think, even where thoughts are not physically manifested. And yet, the laws that apply force to support the concept of intellectual property violate this core principle.

********

When we think about computers, we don't usually think about what computers actually are, just what they do -- the software they run or the content they display. The computer is just a passive, invisible entity. We don't even call most of them "computers." We use words like "smartphone," or "tablet" instead of "tablet computer." Kindles and Nooks are "e-readers." We call desktop PCs that have joysticks instead of keyboards "game consoles," and we cannot seen and are not shown the computers in our Blu-Ray players and automobiles. But, these are all programmable, universal computers.

Universal computers are special, because they can execute any algorithm. An algorithm is thought broken down into pieces -- a set of process and rules that can be described using logic. What algorithms may be run on a computer is limited only by the speed of its circuitry and capacity to store data. It is always important to keep in mind that any computer is a "thinking machine," Computers process concrete logical instructions. In that sense, computer thinking seems to differ from people thinking -- but nevertheless, computers do an increasing amount of our thinking for us.

********

The "Information Age" is characterized by the word "information." Information is a long, Latin-rooted, technical-sounding word. We understand it, when read or heard, at an intellectual remove from our living experience. "The Information Age" is basically a marketing phrase, used to sell people on the idea that money can be made by buying and selling information. And the idea of commercializing thought would be a tougher sell. Marketers avoid words like "knowing" and "thought." To control the marketplace of thought would mean having to control thought. We don't like to contemplate what that means for a free society. Would it mean that just as state force helps control the market of land and things, it must also guarantee the marketplace of thought? That seems scary. Instead, "information" may be bought, sold, and owned, even as thoughts remain free.

So, the Information Age marketer sells a piece of information, which is translated into a series of logical processes, run through a universal computer, and turned into numbers that can be stored and displayed. A universal computer can run any algorithm with which it is programmed. Duplicating what it has stored in its memory, even when it's only cached there temporarily, is really easy. This means that profits can't be extracted from the scarcity of information.

In an attempt to make the information artificially scarce, sellers have tried increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to control it. But, these have been foiled again and again. Universal computers can run the algorithms that defeat the restrictions, because they have to be leaky for the information to be distributed and read by paying customers. Information sellers respond by developing restrictions that are increasingly fundamental to the operation of the computer. For example, software can be silently installed in computers that secretly reports on unauthorized access when a computer goes online, or even shuts computer's operating system and ability to function entirely. This is especially common in computers that are marketed in ways that avoid calling them "computers," like smartphones, tablets, game consoles, and embedded devices.

Anything thought builds, though, thought can undo. Thoughts, implemented as algorithms running on computers, can be used to break all the most sophisticated locks placed on information. The knowledge of how to circumvent can be restricted by banning certain algorithms, censoring the websites that publicize them, and watching those who seek them. Algorithms, imagined by knowledge applied creatively, can go around all these measures. So, the only solution is to ban the thoughts behind the algorithm -- to punish the people who think about them and try to learn about them.

********

Intellectual property laws are all about the use of force to support artificial boundaries around thoughts, to make them scarce and thus commercially valuable. The state applies force by banning the "bad" algorithms that pierce the boundaries. The state therefore must, by necessity, police thought. The state must by force, the threat and actuality of imprisonment, prevent the execution of certain algorithms, and the creation of others. Thought is restricted, even where that thought may improve our lives in small ways, like by making the transfer of large amounts of data more efficient, or big ways, like by allowing dissidents to organize protests more safely. More urgently then just our convenience, there is our basic assumption that a free society is based on the freedom to think. The laws that try to regulate thought will inevitably lead to injustice. Innovators who seek to benefit society as a whole fall under the hammer of the law, while those who seek to use algorithms to commit crimes in the shadows slip around the enforcers. The powerless, too unskilled or lacking in resources to escape detection, are the ones who are caught.

If intellectual property were really about the act of creation by thought -- if it were the way to create a free market of ideas -- can it be compatible with a legal regime that inhibits the freedom of thought and the freedom to create? The digital age reveals what intellectual property has always been about, the parcelization and control of thoughts to benefit those who did not create but rather owned the means of amplification and distribution -- the industrialists who run printing presses, the studio executives, and the financiers behind them. There is no moral case for intellectual property as protection for creators. How can one exist, when the laws needed to enforce intellectual property take away the freedom of people to create?