I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Jan 18 at 4:52am
... how many of the people on Facebook and Twitter who are really, really indignant about SOPA have actually read the text of the bill? Or even the summary?
I'm amazed at the ease with which the entire world can be made righteously furious. There are 17-year-old Turkish kids on my Facebook feed who are outraged about SOPA. It's simply impossible that they've read it; they just know it's cool to be outraged.
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Spot on, Claire. You've got people pretending this is the equivalent of the concentration camps or something. There's a lot of righteous indignation that someone might not be able to pirate their hentai DVD's anymore. I don't like the legislation and would ask my Congressman to vote against it as presently written, but the overreaction to the bills borders on the farcical.
Mar '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Samuel Amaral
Just to name a few websites where I found SOPA related information : thepiratebay.com(filesharing)
"File Sharing", in the context of places like the Pirate Bay, means copyright infringement (and lets be honest and come right out and say it... theft). "File Sharing" is euphemistic weasel words to blunt what it is that they really do.
Jul '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Fred Cole
Do I need to read the bill to know that there's no problem with the Internet that I need the government to solve?
Did I need to read the ObamaCare bill to know that I don't need to be commanded under penalty of law to buy to buy insurance? · Jan 18 at 5:10am
Amen to that Fred! I have read the bill and let me just say this, It is well in line with the fine, high quality manure one is used to seeing shoveled out of DC these days.
May '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
The real problem is that they are using a massive club to try to accomplish the impossible. Like it or not, 1) technology has overcome the historic business models of many powerful legacy interests, and 2) there is a fundamental disconnect between the Berne Convention and Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the US Constitution.
If we here really are constitutionalists, we recognize that the goal of copyright clause is to get things published and then into the public domain in a reasonably short time. When those who wrote that clause of the Constitution wrote the implementing legoislation, the time was 14 years, with option to renew for 14 more years. Full stop. Now it is over 100 years, based on the rent-seeking of interested parties, whether they be Walt Disney, the CS Lewis Foundation, or writers such as this. who think that their writings should be perpetually protected- for their benefit- by the government. If I were a writer who could produce things that someone might actually pay to read, I might like perpetual rights too. The Founders didn't agree.
May '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
The fundamental problem is that due to technology, the steps needed to fully protect copyright are incompatible with our free society. You are innocent until proven guilty for criminal matters, but guilty and put out of business regarding copyright with no safety steps in between? All you need to do is make a claim and act, like Righthaven?
The correct solution is not this- if you want to be in that marketplace, the burden of proof is on you. Get an injunction, show some reasonable evidence, if you are harmed, sue for damages. Is it "fair" that some slimy infringer can bleed the value out of your IP while you are following due process? Fairness isn't the issue- it is due process. Life isn't fair, and no one guaranteed perpetual applicability of your business. Publishing, news punditry, movies, and recording are forever changed from their historic models.
Look at it differently. Suppose I made a patented product, and got a law passed that if I thought my product was being infringed, I had the right to unilaterally force stores and Amazon to stop selling it and have the stuff burned. You can only respond afterwards.
Oct '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Douglas
Samuel Amaral
Just to name a few websites where I found SOPA related information : thepiratebay.com(filesharing)
"File Sharing", in the context of places like the Pirate Bay, means copyright infringement (and lets be honest and come right out and say it... theft). "File Sharing" is euphemistic weasel words to blunt what it is that they really do. · Jan 18 at 9:19am
The Pirate Bay is merely a filesharing tool, they aren't liable if one of their users do something illegal with it.
They do have a lot of legitimate content in there, there is nothing weaselly about it.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Nick Schulz expands on this theme far better than I could have.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Duane,
Why are you making the socialist "in the public interest" argument over the classical liberal "personal ownership" position? A free society and a free market require the protection of private property and the enforcement of contracts. You cannot have a stable market without them. I think you need to download fewer movies and mp3s, and read Madison's "On Property" more.
There is absolutely no reason to require anything to ever become a part of the "public domain." Friedman's arguments regarding the property apply as easily to intellectual property as they do to physical. The foundation of all individual rights is in the concept of intellectual property. If you have no right to prevent the distribution of your work and labor, because others want to "improve and expand upon it for the betterment of society," you have no rights at all.
Any argument you bring up against IP, I can use against physical property just as easily. Your lawnmower should be public property, your lawn, your house, your children. It's for the "betterment of society" after all. The whole, "but it isn't physical" thing is a canard.
And I oppose SOPA/PIPA btw.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
It is not Rent Seeking to demand that you be paid for your labor, and be able to control who you sell your property to. That is called a market.
It is Rent Seeking to seek access to other's labor so that you may profit from it by "expanding" upon it. Bringing things into the public domain is the government seizing power, not protecting freedom.
Aug '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
You have failed to actually read what Helprin has written. From his notorious essay:
(blast this 200-word limit!)
Edited on Jan 18 at 11:20amAug '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
(Continued from above)
(Emphasis Mine)
Exactly. And that is what Helprin has spoken out against.
Edited on Jan 18 at 11:26amRe: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Is it too much to ask of the world that they think about this issue at least this much before they decide that they have very, very strong feelings about this bill? I don't mind strong feelings about politics, and I don't like this bill. But the ease with which so many people were manipulated really disturbs me. As I said, I'm seeing tons of Turkish teenagers, not one of whom reads English past the fifth-grade level, just outraged by this. And I doubt but one of them understands the issue.
May '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
I'm wading into unfamiliar territory with this topic. All in saying, I'm not sure about "intellectual property," and would love to hear rebuttals against my own objections.
Ms. Berlinski said that "copyright and patent protection are important to the functioning of a free-market economy." DrewInWisconsin just argued that protecting intellectual property accords with justice.
The first claim focuses on the economy, and the second claim is a moral one. The economic argument is less than obvious to me, so I would be flattered if Ms. Berlinski, or anyone else, would explain how copyrights and patents aid and promote the workings of the free market (historically or theoretically).
As regards the moral argument, I'm a bit flummoxed. Ayn Rand notwithstanding, are we so certain intellectual property is a legitimate concept (whose idea is it anyway, and is there a copyright on it?).
With all other property, there exists a level of scarcity. If someone takes my jacket, then I no longer possess this jacket, and a theft has occurred. If someone takes my ideas, however, I still possess these ideas. Nothing was stolen from me. My property was merely copied or replicated. (cont...
Edited on Jan 18 at 11:57amMay '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
I suppose an objection would be that the value of my property has depreciated (been devalued) by being copied, making me the victim of theft in a round about way. If I write a book or an article, for example, I properly expect a certain return on my intellectual labor. Yet if others publish my material (due to a lack of copyright laws), then they are profiting off my work and lessening my own return.
A fair objection. But do I really have a right to a certain economic value--to expect a certain return--from my property? Doesn't this argument confuse property with the market value of property?
Aren't there numerous activities that devalue the market price of property and yet are not considered illegal or a form of theft? If my neighbor plants corn, for example, and I decide to plant corn as well, the value of his property will decrease. Have I committed a theft?
Mar '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Samuel Amaral
Douglas
Samuel Amaral
Just to name a few websites where I found SOPA related information : thepiratebay.com(filesharing)
"File Sharing", in the context of places like the Pirate Bay, means copyright infringement (and lets be honest and come right out and say it... theft). "File Sharing" is euphemistic weasel words to blunt what it is that they really do. · Jan 18 at 9:19am
The Pirate Bay is merely a filesharing tool, they aren't liable if one of their users do something illegal with it.
They do have a lot of legitimate content in there, there is nothing weaselly about it. · Jan 18 at 10:56am
That's a dodge. They're like a fence for stolen goods. The very Raison' d' Etre of the Pirate Bay is to facilitate digital piracy, started by people in Sweden who are against the very existence of any kind of copyright laws. Helping someone to distribute millions of copies of copyrighted material without payment on the web is "sharing" in the same way that showing a burglar how to pick your neighbor's lock is sharing.
Oct '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Douglas
That's a dodge. They're like a fence for stolen goods. The very Raison' d' Etre of the Pirate Bay is to facilitate digital piracy, started by people in Sweden who are against the very existence of any kind of copyright laws. Helping someone to distribute millions of copies of copyrighted material without payment on the web is "sharing" in the same way that showing a burglar how to pick your neighbor's lock is sharing. · Jan 18 at 1:38pm
Not is is not a dodge, the personal crusade of the Swedes in question is irrelevant. There are millions of files under CC and other perfectly legal licences which are shared on the piratebay.
For example the Climategates email, the Asange/Manning files/Wikileaks, various freewares and Opensource software are distributed using Piratebay and related torrent applications.
The service the piratebay provide is neutral, each user is responsible for it legal use.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Brandon,
The problem lies that a removal of protection of private property removes any incentive to create or be innovative. Look at nations that have limited or no intellectual property rights, they have little to no innovation or new creation. Their innovations tend to be in processes and not in inventions or creations.
Even removing the incentive argument, which is strong and is the entire basis of Locke's 2nd Treatise undermining of the sovereign, in which it is the act of creation that gives something value at all -- there is still a compelling case for protecting intellectual property.
I would recommend that you re-read Madison's short essay On Property. There you will see that a property of ideas is the entire foundation of classical liberalism. If you do not have a right to dictate who can use your ideas, your creations, without compensation, you have no rights at all.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Any argument that you can bring up regarding how "intellectual property" is just a concept can be applied to real property as well. Marx, in his essay "The Jewish Question" does exactly that. He argues, in effect, that any argument for ownership or individual rights is an argument against the species being. Any argument against intellectual property is an argument against the sovereignty of the individual and for the collective to have unfettered access.
It is nothing save selfish socialism and the diminishment of individuality. The market solves this. No one is required to buy the product of your work at the price you desire, nor are you required to release the product of your work for a lower price than you are willing to accept.
Free markets require the protection of property -- all property -- and the enforcement of contracts.
The concept of intellectual property isn't new. The desire to acquire is equally not new. Don't let your desire to acquire undermine your desire for freedom.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Samuel,
Why is pirate bay called pirate bay again?
Who is the pirate party again? What is their purpose? They are a socialist party who wants the absolute dissolution of intellectual property rights.
It is a dodge.
The fact that there are legal, and legitimate, uses for file sharing technologies like BitTorrent has nothing to do with Pirate Bay.
Oct '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Nathaniel Wright: Samuel,
Why is pirate bay called pirate bay again?
Just like the ''Progressive Goodstafarian Unicorn Candie Party'' wouldn't make a political party legitimate, say Democrats, not even more palatable.
Judging a website by its name is not really a point. It is named Piratebay because it is ''cool'' and sound contrarian
Nathaniel Wright:
The fact that there are legal, and legitimate, uses for file sharing technologies like BitTorrent has nothing to do with Pirate Bay. · Jan 18 at 2:50pm
It has everything to do because sites such as the Piratebay provide the server power necessary to allow BitTorrent network to function. The technicals are shaky in my head, but it provides an indexing service of sorts.
Using the PB don't make you a socialist, no much less than using a bank is direct Donation to Obama through Goldman Sachs. The political goals of some of the PB technical staff has nothing to do with the legitimacy of it.
Edited on Jan 18 at 3:10pm