tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post5834725219342097153..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Argument by analogy and copyright infringementEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-6170936042984498572012-07-01T19:46:46.111+00:002012-07-01T19:46:46.111+00:00Some other self-consistent positions which don'...Some other self-consistent positions which don't seem to be held by Wales:<br /><br />1) Copyright infringement is not wrong.<br />1a) "Copyright is merely a proper meddling of the government with the free markets, for the sake of the greater good." This position seems to contradict Wales' Libertarian politics.<br />1b) "Copyright infringement should not be a crime." This is one of the more common Libertarian positions, but Wales seems to disclaim this one.<br />2) "Aiding and abetting in a crime should not be a crime." If Wales believes this, he's certainly going out of his way to avoid admitting it.<br />3) "Extradition should not be allowed unless the alleged criminal was physically present in the foreign country at the time the crime was committed." It's possible this is what Wales believes. Again though he seems to be avoiding saying it.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-58006246725597876752012-07-01T18:59:03.109+00:002012-07-01T18:59:03.109+00:00Why doesn't the "internet freedom of spee...Why doesn't the "internet freedom of speech" argument apply to credit card numbers?<br /><br />The only argument for this I've heard is essentially that "privacy" trumps "freedom of speech" which trumps "copyright". But I don't think this is Wales' argument. It's certainly not one I agree with.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-44785611486151719392012-06-30T11:11:34.008+00:002012-06-30T11:11:34.008+00:00Inca Muster's question is this: Given that the...Inca Muster's question is this: Given that there is apparently no reason to act in either case X or case Y, why act in case Y? Wales gives a plausible sounding answer, but an answer to a rather different question, viz, Given that there are equally compelling reasons to act in both case X and case Y, why act in case Y rather than X? This is the situation of Buridan's Ass; it can be resolved by choosing either course of action at random if necessary, if there is no other way of breaking the symmetry. Wales, I think, is being rather disingenuous, not wishing to explain quite why case Y relevantly differs from case X. But he does touch on this in the Guardian piece, where he seems to be urging that 'internet freedom of speech' should trump individuals' intellectual property rights, claiming that telling people where stolen goods may be found is (or ought to be) protected in US law under the first amendment. Or, at any rate, the providers of certain kinds of internet service should be spared the costs of protecting IP rights.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com