4 ms·

You're missing the most obvious ones. Empirically, copyright law is not effective. That is to say, copyright is massively violated for non-commercial use. En

You're missing the most obvious ones. Empirically, copyright law is not effective. That is to say, copyright is massively violated for non-commercial use. Enforcing laws which are empirically not obeyed is a bad idea, regardless of the philosophical merits of pro-copyright or anti-copyright arguments. The most popular P2P protocols will advance to the point where enforcing copyright law means enforcing an absurd policy: if your computer shares copyrighted information even without your knowledge, you're guilty of infringement. The only way to avoid it is not to participate in such advanced P2P swarms (where nodes cache content for delivery to other nodes), since nobody knows the copyright status of a particular hash-addressable piece of content. Enforcing laws in a way that bans a neutral computer technology (P2P sharing of arbitrary content) is untenable [1], regardless of the ethical, moral, and economic arguments surrounding copyright violation. I see those arguments often. If you agree that those are not fallacies, I don't understand why you think copyright discussions degenerate into fallacies. [1] What Colour are your bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php

codex 14y ago
I don't think that's a fallacy at all. I think that's a valid argument for the modification of copyright law.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 14y ago
The point of copyright isn't really to keep little Timmy from downloading one or two songs. It's to keep some Korean operation from selling bootleg CDs in the free and clear, or to keep companies like Youtube from capturing all the profit that derives from content by virtue of being the entity closest to the user.
- marknutter 14y ago
  > The point of copyright isn't really to keep little Timmy from downloading one or two songs Oh it isn't? So then why is the MPAA and RIAA suing the parents of Timmy's all over the country?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    In a misguided effort to deter the users of piracy systems run for profit by entities that are not easily reached by copyright law. What's your point?
tptacek 14y ago
There are a lot of laws that aren't effective. Empirically, laws that attempt to restrain gamesmanship among investment megabanks aren't effective. Laws against many forms of tax evasion aren't effective. Here's one close to home: laws against breaking into computers, stealing whole databases, and splashing them onto Pastebin aren't effective. That could happen to any of your startups tomorrow, and the likelihood of the law protecting you is very low. In all of those cases, people routinely flout the law. It's not just that it's hard to enforce the law; it's that people routinely violate it. The ineffectiveness of laws is not a logical argument that the goals of those laws are bad. It's an argument either that the laws haven't been tuned properly, or that our enforcement priorities need to be changed --- in the case of copyright, probably in a direction you're not happy with. Long story short: if you believe that this is a powerful argument against copyright, you forfeit a pretty big chunk of any of your arguments against Wall Street.
- Zigurd 14y ago
  It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse: more surveillance can make almost any law enforceable. Requiring disclosure and regulatory review of exotic financial contracts doesn't violate individuals' privacy except in some very artificial and theoretical terms, and the downside risk is global in reach and magnitude. Building the kind of surveillance that ensures individuals will observe all terms of service they unknowingly agreed to and can bring felony charges and large statutory damages against them reliably and efficiently does violate all kinds of individual privacy. It also institutionalizes a privileged place for publishers in the legal system, and brings Big Brother into our homes. None or that can be said for financial regulation. We don't owe banks or publishers or buggy-whip vendors the ability to continue to do business in any particular way. We do owe people their privacy. There is a fundamental difference here you no doubt see, but ignore.

codex 14y ago

I don't think that's a fallacy at all. I think that's a valid argument for the modification of copyright law.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 14y ago

The point of copyright isn't really to keep little Timmy from downloading one or two songs. It's to keep some Korean operation from selling bootleg CDs in the free and clear, or to keep companies like Youtube from capturing all the profit that derives from content by virtue of being the entity closest to the user.

marknutter 14y ago
> The point of copyright isn't really to keep little Timmy from downloading one or two songs Oh it isn't? So then why is the MPAA and RIAA suing the parents of Timmy's all over the country?
- tptacek 14y ago
  In a misguided effort to deter the users of piracy systems run for profit by entities that are not easily reached by copyright law. What's your point?

tptacek 14y ago

There are a lot of laws that aren't effective. Empirically, laws that attempt to restrain gamesmanship among investment megabanks aren't effective. Laws against many forms of tax evasion aren't effective. Here's one close to home: laws against breaking into computers, stealing whole databases, and splashing them onto Pastebin aren't effective. That could happen to any of your startups tomorrow, and the likelihood of the law protecting you is very low. In all of those cases, people routinely flout the law. It's not just that it's hard to enforce the law; it's that people routinely violate it. The ineffectiveness of laws is not a logical argument that the goals of those laws are bad. It's an argument either that the laws haven't been tuned properly, or that our enforcement priorities need to be changed --- in the case of copyright, probably in a direction you're not happy with. Long story short: if you believe that this is a powerful argument against copyright, you forfeit a pretty big chunk of any of your arguments against Wall Street.

Zigurd 14y ago
It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse: more surveillance can make almost any law enforceable. Requiring disclosure and regulatory review of exotic financial contracts doesn't violate individuals' privacy except in some very artificial and theoretical terms, and the downside risk is global in reach and magnitude. Building the kind of surveillance that ensures individuals will observe all terms of service they unknowingly agreed to and can bring felony charges and large statutory damages against them reliably and efficiently does violate all kinds of individual privacy. It also institutionalizes a privileged place for publishers in the legal system, and brings Big Brother into our homes. None or that can be said for financial regulation. We don't owe banks or publishers or buggy-whip vendors the ability to continue to do business in any particular way. We do owe people their privacy. There is a fundamental difference here you no doubt see, but ignore.