So say the Beltway “libertarians” at the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13074/google-youtube-is-a-criminal-enterprise/
Google-YouTube Is a “Criminal Enterprise”
Previous post: The End is Near
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 24 comments }
This just in! Apologists for the state demonize private enterprise! More at 11.
It is clear from the referenced article that Sydor disagrees with Kinsela, et. al at LvMI. Beyond that, neither this post, nor the referenced post advances the argument for or against copyright.
I do have to wonder though, at the use of pejorative terms in this post. Ad Hominem attacks like this discredit LvMI.
Are you talking about the “” around “libertarians”? Aren’t they free to how they choose to define that term, and who is excluded from it? (Same in reverse as well).
I don’t agree with this discrediting anyone, people are people. I don’t expect robots who argue at LvMI or anywhere, and I don’t think many people will look at it the way you do. I care more about honesty than people playing nice.
The quotation marks implying that Sydor isn’t a real libertarian, the term “beltway” implying that he is wrong because his office is on the wrong side of a Washington D.C. freeway, and the tone in general. The general thrust of the post was to discredit it author because of who he is and where his office is rather than address the substance of the article.
LvMI authors frequently differentiate themselves from other schools of economics by claiming to use “deductive logic” as opposed to “inductive logic” (presumably of Keynesian economists). An important distinction, but one that is severely weakened when authors commit simple and basic deductive fallacy in their arguments.
Looks like someone needs to review the definition of “ad hominem.”
Tad,There is a difference between making an observation about a persons character, and attempting to discredit their arguments merely on the bases of such observations. The latter is called “reductio ad hominem”, the former is simply characterization.I don’t think the OP was trying to argue against the linked article’s points by simply calling them beltway “libertarians”. In other words, if the argument was, “these guys operate within DC and call themselves libertarians, therefore their point about copyrighted works are invalid,” then that would be an ad hominem attack. However, I believe he was operating on the implied irony of so-called “libertarians” defending the state over private enterprise; which is not an ad hominem attack.
So, Isaac, the definition of “libertarian” is someone who agrees with the LvMI position on IP, and anyone else that uses the word is a pretender? Nevertheless, the intent, as near as I can make it out, was to put the PFF argument down because of its source, and not because of its merits. therein lies the fallacy.
No, I was putting down both the merits and the source. What I really object to here is not so much the defense of IP — I’m not quite as rigid as Kinsella @ Co. on this — but PFF’s characterization of YouTube as a “criminal racketeering enterprise,” a label I’ve never seen PFF apply to actual government agencies.
When it comes to, say, the Federal Trade Commission, PFF’s approach is appeasement; they would never call a government agency “criminal” for fear of losing their credibility within the Beltway. But when it comes to a private firm engaging in activities that are controversial within the libertarian community, PFF’s declaration of criminality is unequivocal. I find that misguided at best.
Valid points, but they were not obvious from your original post.
I also thought the PFF argument was over the top. As I said, their article did nothing to move the discussion forward. Clearly the judge that found Google/You Tube had a safe harbor didn’t feel there was a criminal act. Such rhetoric from Sydor was fallacy through and through, though it is difficult decide whether to assign it to “appeal to emotion” or “straw man.” Perhaps a bit of both?
I have not formed a solid opinion on the IP question. I think the “all creative works are derivative works” argument has some merit, but it is not compelling, or even completely sound. I also think that there is some basis for considering creative or intellectual works as “property” of some sort, but I balk at excessive penalties for infringment and frivolous lawsuits like SCO v. Linux.
The word used to be liberal, but now we have to say classical-liberal or libertarian. If you don’t reject some people from the group even the word libertarian should cease to have meaning.
Given that IP enforcement is impossible in a free society with modern technology I don’t think any reasonable person can argue for it. You absolutely must have a big government which is definitely not a libertarian position in anyone’s view. At the very least government would have to stay at it’s current size, but that’s doubtful.
If you disagree with this, I’d like to know how you think services will go in the future that use encryption to circumvent IP law. Are we going to outlaw encryption?
So, Isaac, the definition of “libertarian” is someone who agrees with the LvMI position on IP, and anyone else that uses the word is a pretender?
You’re distracting the issue with a straw man fallacy (while we’re throwing out fallacies…)
My point is, the original post is not arguing that they are wrong simply because of their personal character, therefore this isn’t reductio ad hominem.
If you want to debate the definition of “libertarian” then go ahead, but don’t do so by trying to call this ad hominem.
Oliva clearly has an opinion of what it means to be a libertarian, one which is supported by many libertarians. Accusing people of not meeting that definition is not an ad hominem attack; but merely a statement of opinion. There is a difference.
Rejecting opinion or testimony based on someone’s character constitutes what you call reductio ad hominem. Rejecting their argument is the fallacy. The argument must stand or fall on its premises. (It doesn’t stand, so the point is moot.) Whether PFF is libertarian, conservative, liberal, or little green men from mars is irrelevant, as is whether they reside inside or outside of the beltway.
Question: Did the original post, or this interchange between you and I move the question of what to do with IP forward? Are we any closer to a resolution? If so, then I stand corrected. If not, what was the point?
Every time I visit this website, the term “ad-hominem” pops up.
I am not able to view your RSS feed URL. Can you please help me?
Looks like the feed URL changed, used to be http://blog.mises.org/feed/ but now it is http://feeds.mises.org/MisesBlog?format=xml .
The main problem is that IP defenders are completely failing to acknowledge that time are changing very fast and they are failing to adapt. They look very much like those French generals who in 1914, in face of machine guns, repeating rifles and quick firing artillery, believed the day would still be won by a combination of elan and bayonet charges. Any war monument in any small French village will tell you how successful they were.
The same here. We are still sticking to decades old copyright laws that predate the widespread use of cassette recorders, let alone the Internet and only small amendment were done. Even laws designed from scratch to cover the so called “multimedia” are still inspired by the same old principles that may have been fine and dandy when Elvis was still a little known singer in Memphis but have become completely outdated.
The French found an unlikely savior in the elderly military governor of Paris, General Galliéni, who taught his troops to dig in and to give the Germans a taste of their own medicine with concentrated firepower. Will the copyright world learn the lesson of General Galliéni or will they keep rushing in to be slaughtered?
Don’t worry, they’ve got a nuke.
Assumptions
Mr. Oliva posted a single sentence linking to a news article. He assumed that fellow readers of mises.org share his criticisms of intellectual-monopoly rights, meaning that they find them to be “property” only in the sense that the state has declared them to be so.
The more interesting thing to me is the degree to which the larger culture assumes the opposite. No one thinks anything of calling patent or copyright infringement “theft,” even though the use of such terms is hotly debated in the larger community. Consider the cited article, which refers to youtube as a “criminal racketeering enterprise.” People who speak in such terms expect society to agree with them, and never deign to defend the terms they use. Today, they have power; they define the terms. Times, however, are changing.
One final thing: I hold a monopoly on all thoughts contained in this short posting. Don’t believe me? Check out the state imprimatur I placed at the end:
© David Hancock (2010)
Noooooooo!
You have defeated me for the last time, David Hancock!
You will rue the day, I repeat, rue the day you put a copyright symbol on a post on a public blog on the internet and monopolizing the content contain within.
What David said, sans the copyright.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, David. The larger culture assumes the opposite. Thus the “prevailing presumption” is the opposite, that IP is “property” of some sort, protectable by legislated regulation. As a result, the burden of proof belongs, as it rightfully should, on those who seek to change long standing policy. That doesn’t mean the position taken by LvMI is wrong; it merely means you have to prove your case. Thus far, based on the fact that the majority of the common culture still assumes the opposite, the case has not been proven.
Much of the rhetoric in the debate centers on the premise that IP, being “intangible” is not a “thing” which can be “owned.” Yet the very idea of property ownership is really nothing more than an abstract idea that has been agreed upon in some cultures. Other cultures have had different ideas (consider the native American view that the land was common to all and owned by none, or the socialist/statist view that all means of production and distribution belongs to the state). There is no intrinsic boundary to any form of property, tangible or otherwise, only boundaries agreed upon by men. The state, by virtue of the police power, always has the right to force a change in whatever agreements men may enter into — rightly or wrongly. Territorial wars have been fought because the two sides could not agree on the boundaries of their nations. The very term Real Estate comes from the Spanish, with the word real meaning “royal.” In the absence of the state, the right of might makes the rules and the biggest baddest dude/group around takes what he/they want.
To borrow from an analogy of another poster, the fact that it was difficult to defend France, or the fact that the Maginot line was ineffective, cannot be used as evidence that France should not have been defended, or that it was morally wrong for Germany to attack. Similarly, just because it is difficult to prevent unauthorized copy of IP or that current IP law is ineffective does not establish that IP should not be protected nor that unauthorized copying is a legitimate activity.
If we’re going to win the argument, then it will be necessary to start with solid premises that are generally agreed upon, and then build a solid deductive (or inductive) case that shows the benefits of eliminating IP outweigh the downside. I haven’t seen that argument yet.
The larger culture assumes the opposite. Thus the “prevailing presumption” is the opposite, that IP is “property” of some sort, protectable by legislated regulation. As a result, the burden of proof belongs, as it rightfully should, on those who seek to change long standing policy.
Interesting. So by that logic, because most people believe in a God, the burden of proof is upon atheists — to prove that He doesn’t exist.
Thus far, based on the fact that the majority of the common culture still assumes the opposite, the case has not been proven.
I see. So by that logic, since the majority of “the common culture” haven’t been convinced that pi is irrational (indeed, most of them probably couldn’t say what it means for a number to be irrational), that assertion remains to be proven.
“Judge Stanton thus endangered consumers by holding that federal law was intended to protect from civil liability even a criminal enterprise that intentionally uses consumers and children as human shields to deter the enforcement of federal rights”
Using children as human shields … do you recognize the rhetoric? These are the same people who egged on Bush to kill Iraqis.
Yeah, way over the top compared to what Oliva wrote above. “Children as human shields” and “RICO”, are they serious? Basically making the implication that they’re some kind of mafia or “terrorists”. It’s the same kind of language and it strikes me as desperate. Talk about ad hominem.
As a customer of Google and someone who has enjoyed legal You Tube videos I find that kind of “think tank” article adolescent because it also seems like a veiled “guilt by association” tact aimed at all Google/You Tube users. Sort of like saying, “Osama likes your oil dependency” or “drug use funds evil doers”, etc., or “if you’re with Google/You Tube, you’re with the terrorists… hurting babies… destroying families… blah blah blah.”
Comments on this entry are closed.