I'm not saying arson is a white collar crime just that if you're desperate for money for whatever reason, and you're generally pretty smart, you may be inclined to try to get away with something like that. The same with kidnapping, although that seems much more violent and likely to end badly for everyone involved than arson.

  > minor offenses such as trespassing and copyright violations

Without knowing more the best we could say is that high-IQ people are more aware of their crimes or maybe more willing to admit to them. For example, a property lawyer might be more likely to admit to trespassing than the average person just because he's more aware of how often he commits it. At the same time, his awareness of and persistence in such unlawful behavior doesn't mean he's flouting the law more than anyone else except in the most pedantic, literal sense.

The whole study sounds dubious. Relying on self-reporting is excused as necessary. That there are no practical alternatives doesn't make the method magically sound or even remotely accurate. That in the aggregate self-reporting roughly corresponds with crime statistics says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of self-reporting for niche subgroups.

It's this kind of pseudo-science that gives science in any field a bad name. I can appreciate that it might be especially difficult to find funding for a study that, first, establishes a strong correlation between self-reporting and IQ. But until there's significant push back from the community for studies premised on barely-tenable assumptions that funding will never be forthcoming.

The way you put ityou are likely to get even anti-IP people, like myself, on the other side because we don't want to be associated with you.

Switching back to copyright, I think that saying "copyright is not a monopoly" it is not as cut and dry as the linked site would indicate. I think one's ability to hire lawyers matters here.

Consider Disney, they will have a much easier time defending themselves, where a smaller author might not be able too. Disney will also have a much easier defeating a legitimate defense of another real author than a lone author might be able to. It is not hard to imagine a hypothetical Disney of yesteryear suing people to keep other space operas down with their Star Wars IP. It is harder to imagine a small defendant succeeding in that defense even if it is legitimate. I think this is largely a non-issue, because Disney of today is less of jerk.

Of all the kinds of Intellectual Property I think Copyright is most fair, the kind of legal abuse I described is much more common with Trademarks and Patents. I think the recent "flow" trademark issue or anything King software (the candy crush guys) does with game names so how asymmetric IP laws can be in general.

I don't think that is true. Neither does everybody know that a monopoly is bad, nor, and more importantly, is a monopoly inherently bad. Take for example the monopoly on violence. And even if you want to restrict the meaning to monopolies in the economic sense, even then is a monopoly not inherently bad. It only becomes so if its powers are abused. Sometimes having competition will increase the total costs, think for example of having five competing power distribution networks. In such cases it may be a better choice to have a monopoly and regulated it to prevent its abuse instead of having competition.

A natural monopoly would be associated with a public utility; probably the various libraries. An electronic library might become a public utility, but so far Spotify, Netflix, etc. have had incomplete catalogs and there's not much support for the compulsory licensing scheme they'd need to make it work (which would be its own public service...)