THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 653, January 15, 2012
"What do you suppose it would it be like, how would it feel,
to spend the rest of the time we two have left in life
without having to struggle against a rogue, feral, criminal
government hell-bent on turning us all into its property
every day, every hour, every minute?"
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
Looking at those mats got me thinking...
Was that worth reading?
Re: "Flash Editorials January 7, 2012" by Russell D. Longcore
Doubtless you've been appraised of this by others, but....
Accordng to the rules, the contestants in the Superbowl must be those teams which had won the playoffs in the two respective National Football League (NFL) conferences.
Inasmuch as the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers are both teams in the National Football Conference (NFC) and neither of your predicted choices is a team in the American Football Conference (AFC), I think either you've made a mistake or there's going to be the most incredible "shuffle" in conference alignment in the history of organized sports.
Was that worth reading?
Re: "Libertarian Law: The "Even If" Principle" by DataPacRat
You asserted in the issue of TLE of 1-8-12 that because governments abuse copyright laws to censor people, that it follows that copyright MUST be fully opposed. I must disagree. Copyright LAWS must be opposed, but copyrights, in and of themselves, must not only be supported, they must be vigorously and totally supported by each and every one of us, to the best of our ability. It is governments, not copyrights, that are in the wrong.
I agree that we, as Libertarians, must accept the downsides of supporting personal freedoms. I can't count the number of times I've defended my stance that Social Security MUST be abolished, Welfare ended, Food Stamps stamped out, etc, without counting the short term costs. On SSI only, I have repeatedly advocated killing it for anyone not already on it or within 10 years of being on it. Being sold a bill of goods, and having no time to prepare to retire, we can't just tell them to starve. But the rest of us must write off the thefts we experienced so far, accept the reduced thefts we will experience to finish off this system, and get on with life. This makes me evil. I understand that.
Copyright must be enforced by any means necessary. I prefer lawsuits to police actions. But enforce them we must. An artist labors to create his art, be it a painting, a sculpture, or a book. Whether his book is a dry tome teaching accountancy or a rip-roaring space adventure, he invested pieces of his life in that endeavor. He has the right to whatever compensation he may finagle. And NO ONE, NO WHERE, has the right, FOR ANY REASON, to steal portions of that life.
If we want artists to continue to produce their arts for us, we must support their OWNERSHIP of these arts. We must join to stomp out any theft of their works, and we must ALSO stomp out any abuses of copyright laws while working towards eliminating the laws and instilling a truly civil, individual, and private enterprise method of protecting the artist's rights.
Do not stop fighting for rights, you have inspired me in many ways. But on this one, we must, respectfully, be at odds. For now, at least!
To put things in your own words (with a wry grin on my lips and no evil in my heart) EVEN IF the government uses copyright laws to censor or abuse others, we must not let that detract from enslaving artists, authors, and others who produce intellectual properties. And laboring, with others taking the results of that labor without just compensation AS DETERMINED BY THE PRODUCER is slavery.
Reply from DataPacRat
Thank you for the polite and thoughtful response. Depending on how you want to proceed, this rational debate flowchart might offer some handy ground rules for discussion. A related thought is this quote:
I am not necessarily intrinsically opposed to the idea of copyright itself... as long as the laws regarding it remain within certain limits. For example, in the "Even If" article, I already mentioned that I'm still all for the part of copyright called 'moral rights', if not necessarily the monetary rights. And at [this PDF document] , especially pages 26-29, is an analysis of the benefits of copyright; wherein, even when every aspect is tilted to favour longer copyrights, the optimal duration is found to be no longer than 14 years, and more likely less. If it were possible to maintain a copyright system which kept to such a duration and no longer, I would consider that to be a point in favour of keeping copyrights; however, as far as I can tell, once it becomes in the best interest of even a few people to extend copyright duration, they will have an incentive to lobby their government to do so; and since the out-of-pocket harm done to any particular individual of an extended copyright is so small, the opposition to such an extension will be small, diffuse, disorganized, and no match for the copyright expansionists. This would imply that, in general, copyrights will expand beyond the limits at which they create benefit; and observation of copyright systems over the past few centuries shows that to be exactly what has happened. Therefore, even if I were to grant your point that copyright is necessary to spur the creation of new works, the harm done to me and you and all other members of the public by keeping all those works out of the public domain (that is, restricting our rights to free speech, such as to make derivative works) heavily outweighs the benefits to the authour when such a copyright system is in place.
As you might guess, I'm not necessarily going to grant you that particular point, either. Naturally, if a different form of copyright (or none) is in place, then the economic incentives will differ, and authours and artists will tend to produce different kinds of workbut that doesn't mean that in the absence of copyright, no new work will be created. I could point to various historical episodes of 'pirate nations', but even in the present, we have several interesting data points. To pick a few, Cory Doctorow, webcomics such as Penny Arcade, FanFiction.net, and work released under the the "Creative Commons" license (or related open source equivalents, such as the Firefox browser I'm typing this email out within). In such cases, the work is released for the public to read freely, without the audience having to pay any copyright licensing fees to read the work; and yet, that's what the authour chooses to do anyway. In the cases of Doctorow and many webcomics, the creators even find ways to monetize their work without relying on copyright, and thrive and prosper.
And even if I were to grant your points about the value to authours of copyright... yet another hurdle needs to be overcome: demonstrating that said authours' profit is more important than the rights of freedom of thought and freedom of speech are to everybody. From just one angle, part of my current thoughts on ethics are still well-described by the first two pages of the "Rationality Matters" comic, viewable at [this link] ; it's vital to the survival of sapience itself that we try to arrange matters to maximize the number of new ideas being generatedeven if the social system which causes that to happen happens not to maximize the profit any particular artist can derive from any particular art they create. I have seen great piles of evidence that copyrights and patents are used to slow down other peoples' creation of new ideas; I have yet to see any significant evidence that a lack of copyright would slow down such creation. From another perspective, if the only way to ensure the general public has an appropriate level of freedom of speech is to minimize current copyright laws to something more reasonable than "life of the authour plus 70 years", the nature of the forces pushing to maximize copyright are so extensive, so wealthy, so good at manipulating politicians, that trying to push for anything other than the absolute minimal copyright possible (including none at all) is like tying one hand behind your back in a boxing match with Godzilla.
With all that said, I'm entirely willing to be persuaded that my current opposition to copyright is mistakenbut that's only likely to happen if the would-be persuader understands not just what my position is, but the reasoning I took to get to it. If, then, they can create a tower of logic that is sounder than the one I'm currently at the top of, one whose foundations can't be knocked aside as easily, then (to mix a metaphor) I'll jump ship and surrender to the better truth as fast as I can. That said, an attempt to persuade me which mentions only the benefits to the authour of a work being in copyright, and neglects to take into consideration the benefit to everyone of a work being in the public domain; or suggests that making a copy of an artist's work is stealing from the artist, without mentioning that increasing the length of copyright steals part of the public domain from everyone; is unlikely to have given the matter enough thought to create such an edifice of reason. But I've been mistaken before and I'll be mistaken again, so I'm quite willing to argue the matter. (At least for a while; eventually, I'll find it more productive to argue about other topics.)
And since I have my quotefile open in another tab, here's a couple of relevant thoughts worth considering:
Thank you for your time,
Neale Osborn Replied:
Well, you certainly gave me food for thought. While I mull it over and determine if I'm gonna leap to YOUR ship or help you over the gunnels of MINE I must ask you one question for YOU to mull over. Why do you want to limit the author's rights to ANY time limit. Letting the copyright expire with the author isn't even a good thing (I think).
Let me use one of my favorite authors. Louis L'Amour, for an example. With the exception of his earliest magazine stories, his sole publisher was Bantam Books. Louis owned the rights to his books, he never sold them. As he got older, and had over 100 books in print, he neglected to renew the copyrights on several of his books. Another publisher, realizing this, legally printed copies of approximately 10 of his books. They ALSO hunted down earlier versions of several of his books that he allowed the copyright to expire on, since he'd corrected certain errors in the latest copyrighted version. And they bought the originals af several stories from several magazines that he'd sold the rights to, and issued "new Louis L'Amour books". Now he acknowledged their right to do the final thing, and put out his OWN collections with added material to get his fans to NOT buy the "knockoffs" But on the other books, he actually had to fight in court to get the right to continue to publish several of his own books BECAUSE the other publisher had copyrighted them. Now, I don't exactly know how to prevent this, but I know it was wrong for them to be allowed to do it to him. Just because a copyright of 14 years seems to be some "agreed on lifespan" for a copyright, WHY does it matter how it benefits society? What matter is how the author is benefitted by his work.
Maybe I want to write a new Win Bear novel, and Neil hasn't written one in 14 years. Does that give me the right to take HIS NAC world and write what I want without his permission? I'm asking, NOT arguing. I think we can come to some sort of meeting of the minds, even if that meeting is a meeting to agree to disagree! have a great day, it'll probably be a few days before I get back to you!
As a side-note- see Spider Robinson's short story entitled "Melancholy Elephants" in a collection of the same nameit deals specifically and interestingly with this topic. I intend to find my copy and re-read it asap. It might have some bearing on this discussion. It was dealing with why copyrights absolutely CANNOT be forever!
I'm about to head to bed; but as a quick reference to a decent set of answers, I can recommend that as a place to start learning about the arguments of both sides, you take a look at [this], especially the links in the footnotes.
Also, Spider Robinson has put "Melancholy Elephants" up for free reading at [his website] .
An article has just filtered into my newsfeeds, in which the previous head of the Swedish Pirate Party recently posted an article covering the anti-copyright side's points. (I'm somewhat surprised to see that Nina Paley, creator of the movie "Sita Sings the Blues" (available for free download), is one of the first commenters.)
Thank you for your time,
New Website is up
My new incarnation of the www.thesecretagentman.com domain is live, five by five. Stop by and give it a look see. Let me know what you think. It's a little more than just a plain ole spy gear site. Ciao,
Gerald A Montgomery
The Resistance needs Secret Agents. Gather your gear. Ready up.
Was that worth reading?
So The FBI gave the Sinaloa Cartel money through paid informants.
Then the BATFE helped them get guns through Operation Fast and Furious, which the DEA, FBI, and ICE got a piece of (The last one reluctantly I've been given to understand).
Then the DEA helped the Sinaloa Cartel launder its money.
Now the media is making a fuss that the Sinaloa Cartel is the most powerful in the world. Gee, what a surprise.
El Qaeda allegedly has been trying to use the Mexican cartels to get into the USA and commit acts of terror. Wouldn't this count as aiding and supporting anti-American terrorists? Doesn't this mean the Military is supposed to seize the directors of these agencies and their boss, AG Eric Holder under the NDAA?
It's fun to watch one's enemies get hoisted by their own petards.
Was that worth reading?