DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Elok]

Regardless of the morality of copyright violations, government attempts to censor the internet can't really be successful without intolerable levels of state control. This is not something we should be cheering.

I doubt very much that attempts to sit on book or movie piracy will work any better than attempts to sit on music piracy. I just got drawn into the discussion that grew out of the OP.

[Kuciwalker]

Elok, he's not conflating law and economics; he's properly applying insights from economics to the question "what legal regime best incentivizes the production of books, movies, etc. while minimizing the losses from restricting access to same?"

[KrazyHorse]

As there's no means of determining whether Pirate X would have done anything, it seems a moot point. If you want it enough to take it without the creator's permission, I have no problem with assuming at least some level of loss. Also, I don't see why I can't conflate law and morality, when you seem to be conflating law and economics.

I'm actually using economics to analyze morality, because I'm a consequentialist, and economics lets us explore the effects our behavior has on others.

EDIT: "conflating" is the wrong word here

[Elok]

Elok, he's not conflating law and economics; he's properly applying insights from economics to the question "what legal regime best incentivizes the production of books, movies, etc. while minimizing the losses from restricting access to same?"

While applying moral opinions is a conflation, since no law is ever based on prevailing moral standards. The law against murder, for example, is based on the lost economic productivity of the dead person plus forecast future losses from people wasting time looking over their shoulders, balanced against market growth from the sales of locks, guns, and kung-fu lessons.

[Hauldren Collider]

I was asking why HC supports intellectual property, not why it's a good idea. I mean, don't libertarians think the government is only supposed to protect "natural rights" or whatever?

Natural rights includes the right to hold property.

[Hauldren Collider]

Regardless of the morality of copyright violations, government attempts to censor the internet can't really be successful without intolerable levels of state control. This is not something we should be cheering.

edit: along the same lines, this sort of thing seriously undermines our rhetoric against Chinese, Iranian, etc. Internet censorship.

They had to get, and got, a court warrant to seize the domain.

[Kuciwalker]

Natural rights includes the right to hold property.

1) Your idea of natural rights is, of course, absurd.

2) The idea that natural rights include a right to intellectual property is completely absurd. What is the term of copyright specified by natural law, pray tell?

They had to get, and got, a court warrant to seize the domain.

This is supposed to indicate what, exactly?

[KrazyHorse]

While applying moral opinions is a conflation, since no law is ever based on prevailing moral standards. The law against murder, for example, is based on the lost economic productivity of the dead person plus forecast future losses from people wasting time looking over their shoulders, balanced against market growth from the sales of locks, guns, and kung-fu lessons.

Again, this brings up a point I'm hoping to avoid until we have agreement that:

a) There needs to be some kind of socialized remuneration of innovators
b) Morality based on experience with non-public goods doesn't lend itself to analyzing public goods

[KrazyHorse]

They had to get, and got, a court warrant to seize the domain.

This is supposed to indicate what, exactly?

The rule of law has benefits even when some of the laws are bad.

[Kuciwalker]

The rule of law has benefits even when some of the laws are bad.

Sure, I don't see a problem generally with them obeying court orders, but the fact that DHS had to go get a court order isn't a meaningful defense of a widespread censorship power.

[Elok]

Again, this brings up a point I'm hoping to avoid until we have agreement that:

a) There needs to be some kind of socialized remuneration of innovators

That being the basis of current copyright law, sure.

b) Morality based on experience with non-public goods doesn't lend itself to analyzing public goods

Digging through Wiki's definition, it seems the definition of "public good" is "can be produced in infinite amounts, and it's basically impossible to keep someone from stealing a copy." That being the case, I wouldn't say it either distinction has any bearing on morality. It does have a bearing on practical law creation and enforcement, which is a different question. I'd say a model similar to current music downloads will have to be employed eventually.

[Kuciwalker]

HC, in the future could you abstain from advancing theories with obvious logical inconsistencies? It is marginally more interesting to debunk theories that are more subtly incoherent.

[Barnabas]

Almost none of the millions of people who downloaded illegally this 80s one hit wonder

would have bought the album or the single that contains that song if there were no Internet


btw

Did Conrad get money for the sales in Germany or France of the translations of Heart of Darkness?
How long have writers expected to get money from the sales of their books and translations of their books from all over the world?
I may be wrong but it strikes me as rather new

[KrazyHorse]

Sure, I don't see a problem generally with them obeying court orders, but the fact that DHS had to go get a court order isn't a meaningful defense of a widespread censorship power.

It is a differentiation between countries where such orders are either unnecessary or issued by kangaroo courts and countries where the rule of law holds.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think we're going to make much headway with the Iranians by arguing "our Internet censorship is okay because our courts are legitimate but yours aren't".