"I personally think intellectual property is an oxymoron. Physical objects have a completely different natural economy than intellectual goods. It's a tricky thing to try to own something that remains in your possession even after you give it to many others"

John Perry Barlow’s assertion that “intellectual property is an oxymoron” challenges the foundational premise of how we value and control creations of the mind. Unlike physical objects, cars, houses, clothing, that are removed from one's possession upon transfer, ideas and information retain a unique property: they can be shared endlessly without depriving the original holder. If you lend your neighbor your car, you no longer have access to it while it’s in their hands; but if you give away a song, a story, or a piece of code, you both retain complete copies. This multiplicity fundamentally distinguishes intellectual goods.

Barlow’s skepticism arises from observing society’s attempt to impose the same legal and economic frameworks designed for tangible property onto the intangible realm of ideas, music, literature, and inventions. The word “property” implies exclusivity, rivalry, and scarcity, traits that define the natural economy of physical things. Intellectual goods, by contrast, resist that exclusivity. Their very nature invites abundance, collaboration, and replication at zero cost. By using the term “oxymoron,” Barlow points to an inherent contradiction in trying to reconcile property rights with nonrivalrous goods.

This contradiction leads to complex ethical and practical implications. On one hand, society wishes to reward creators and incentivize innovation; on the other hand, strict enforcement of intellectual property laws can stifle the rich potential that comes with free circulation of ideas. Laws meant to protect authors and artists can inhibit others from building upon existing knowledge or restrict access to essential goods like medicines and educational materials. Barlow’s view encourages a reevaluation of the assumed benefits of treating information as property, suggesting instead that we seek systems that acknowledge the unique economic and social dynamics of intangible goods, fostering creativity without artificial scarcity. The essence of his statement is an invitation to rethink how ownership and sharing function in a world where copies are as plentiful as the will to share them.