So, unless we think they are acting as moles in the DoJ, I don't see much issue with it, unless they have a conflict of interest such as being an investor in the industry or the like.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but actions by the Mega staff may have triggered such a reaction. Its not unheard of for something "in the works" to trigger the takedown.
A) That we ought to be aware of the genesis of these conspiracy theories. I believe it's based on the influence of objectivist bias (objectivism being common amongst hackers). By human nature, we perceive the world in a way that agrees with our philosophy. For better or worse, that is called bias.
B) That we ought to be singularly focused on the subjects of fair use and free speech.
What? The Objectivist viewpoint is exactly opposite to what you say. Intellectual property is property (Hank Rearden's steel formula was his and his alone, John Galt's engine is his and his ideas are his property) and strong intellectual property rights enforcement are natural rights of their holders, just like ownership of tangible property (and the enforcement thereof) is. The rights holders are the artists/producers etc, who entered into a voluntary business transaction with their labels, distributors etc. who in turn united in the RIAA/MPAA to collective defend their rights. All voluntarily, and every actor in these transactions is looking out for their own interests, and are morally well within their rights to do so.
Having strong intellectual property protection laws isn't rent seeking. It's only rent seeking when it preys on the creation of others who haven't voluntarily entered into a business relationship with the actors at hand. Objectivist dogma says that protecting man's rights (including property rights) is one of the few legitimate government functions.
I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.
>I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.
I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory. It's the framing of this particular theory that has overtones of Atlas Shrugged, in my view. The claim is that the MPAA/RIAA leveraged the government to shut down a potential competitor. This isn't rent seeking by the strict definition, but I never claimed that it was. Rent seeking is only one form of "looter" behavior.
I'd much rather focus on the two fundamental questions. It is not enough to say "we need strong intellectual property laws". That is a very broad statement. We're currently seeing an erosion of fair use, and I think that is a bad thing. We're also seeing an erosion of the protections afforded to the press (whereby "press" includes website operators). I also see this as a bad thing.
I don't want to see website operators acting as enforcers of copyright. That is the government's job. The DMCA already provides the ability for copyright holders to issue take-down notices. Further legislation is pushing the balance too far in favor of rights-holders. I do believe in copyright, and I don't believe "fair use" should include the ability to do what you like with others' work, but website operators ought not be treated as conscripts in the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
EDIT: As I was posting this, someone literally quoted a passage from Atlas Shrugged:
OK, fair enough, but I still think the analogy is a misrepresentation of what really drives people who have strong feelings against intellectual property rights enforcement. There are several camps who can't be lumped together, and whose 'theories' are largely in internal conflict: there are the copyright abolitionists, there is the GPL/FSF crowd, there is the entitled crowd who doesn't really care about reason and just repeatedly says that it's 'unfair' that their 'fair use rights' (of which they have a completely warped view, and which have never existed in the form they imagine in the first place) are being curtailed.
Either way, we disagree on enough other points to continue discussing ;) For example, 'website operators' aren't one group who all deserve indemnification under all circumstances. Megaupload, for example, is a clear case (for the reasonable, non-dogmatic observer) of 'intellectual property infringement facilitation for monetary gain'. Arguably Youtube used to be in its early days. Websites aren't 'press' by definition, and while it's not prima facie reasonable to expect them to be the first conservators of intellectual property laws, they can't just say 'oh it's our users, it's not our responsibility'.
Re: the edit, using that quote in that context makes me angry because it's such a fundamental misrepresentation of what Objectivism and Rand's philosophy stands for and was founded in. Having governments enforce property rights is not the same as what happened in the socialist tyranny that destroyed Rand's family and from which she escaped. Crikes, Rand herself made her fortune from writing screenplays and books, without copyright she would never have been in a position to produce abstract works like her work after The Fountainhead!
Yet, since you bring up Hank Rearden's formula, let's remember that Atlas Shrugged explicitly acknowledged that Rearden was leading a team of scientists and engineers. He was not a solo inventor. Even that team stood on the shoulder of giants, it would have not gotten so far had not previous generations invented steel on which it was based not to mention the metalurgical advances since then that helped.
Also, IP rights are not natural rights. It is hard to find any hint of the idea before Mary I in 1557 and they did not take a form that modern viewers would even recognize until the Statute of Anne in 1709.
And as for "prey[ing] on the creation of others", it might depend on what you mean by that. Almost all of Disney's Masterpieces were based on previous work for which they paid nothing. For that matter, much of Shakespeare's work is based on still earlier works. If IP rights are not limited in time and scope, many of these works would never have been created.
I personally think that an IP rights regime is vital to protecting our creators, but it is not a natural right in the way that owning a physical item is, and I think history has proven that it must be limited in both time and scope if we are to continue creating freely.
Re: the group effort of invention, I don't see the relevance. One can invent as 'work for hire' in the same way that workers in a pottery factory don't become owners of the pots. The second part, that Rearden Steel was an improvement of 'regular' steel, is not a valid comparison either. 'Steel' is a broad word for purified iron, the methods for doing so being diverse. Rearden Steel was (I'm not sure this was stated explicitly, but can imo be reasonably be derived from the circumstance that were described) a specific alloy, made with a specific production process. That is much more specific than 'steel', and here it turns into a discussion on how specific an invention needs to be for it to be able to be 'intellectual property'. I don't think we're at the stage yet where it makes sense to discuss that - my problem is with the crowd who wants to abolish IP all together, or at least have laws that make any enforcement of it impossible or make the cost/benefit tradeoff of enforcement greater than 1.
I now regret using 'natural rights' without qualifying it because I used it in a broad sense, not specifically in the Aristotelian or any other more 'defined' natural rights definition - just as catch-all term for 'axiomatic rights'. (at least for the purposed of my post - I myself still subscribe to an Objectivist foundation of 'natural rights'). Either way, I don't think it's material to the post; nonetheless I can't help myself but saying that I don't see why when a right was first recognized as a natural right reflects on it actually being a 'natural right'. Before the Enlightenment, there was little to no need for IP rights - it wasn't needed in canonical law because canonical law restricted content so the form of that never turned into an issue; and in common law there were marginally few situations where it was an issue.
Finally, Disney never took a verbatim copy of a work and sold it to cinemas; that's not a valid argument for not having IP rights at all. This line of reasoning is imo straw man reasoning. Yes, creators are influenced, in some cases more than others, by existing works or social contexts. That doesn't make the concept of IP invalid. It's merely an (obvious) observation that leads to the conclusion that there need to be boundaries to when something is 'intellectual property'. As I wrote in a post above, I don't care much for that discussion, as it's way beyond the fundamental issue here. I guess our positions aren't that far from each others'; no, IP rights aren't exactly the same as tangible property rights, but there are large amounts of overlap, especially in the philosophical justifications for it (e.g. large parts of Locke's theories on property can (and imo should) be applied to IP rights). Enforcement of IP rights is lacking, as evidenced by the large amounts of pirated content available online. Legal measures without due process may not be the right solution, but previous measures (e.g. the DMCA, which was vilified as much as SOPA back in the 90's! I guess there aren't that many people left who remember those 'discussions') have proven to be ineffective. Website operators shouldn't bear all the responsibility of enforcing IP rights, but they need to make a real effort, especially in cases where their business stands to profit from infringement (Megaupload, but potentially others, too).
Now, to address a couple of your more specific points. Steel is an alloy of iron, not just purified form (although some early forms involved mostly removing impurities and creating the alloy with other impurities naturally present), and while the term steel is somewhat generic I could say something like "440 Stainless Steel" and refer to a very specific composition.
I point out that Rearden relied on it because I believe (it has been a while since I read Atlas Shrugged) Rearden metal used steel as a base. Even if that detail is wrong, it certainly relied on the millenia of metalurgical knowlede developed before Rearden, for which he paid between nothing and very little since only the very most recent developments are patented.
The fact he led a team rather than developping it on his own weakens the clean philosophical argument that it was "earned by the sweat of his brow". He worked with others. Yes, he paid them and has every legal right to claim it as his (actually even that's muddy because he did it through his corporation and it is not entirely clear that he was a 100% owner with no one else having any equity at all). But while that doesn't muddy the legal water, it does muddy the philosophical claim.
When a right was recognized does not change its status certainly, but it does act as evidence against a claim that it is an axiomatic right. One would expect that an axiomatic right would have at least some traces of origins in antiquity and that it would have arisen (even if it took a while) independently in many cultures. This is not true of copyright or patents. Those were extremely modern, created by a legislature and for a very specific purpose. Euclid would likely be shocked by the idea that someone would need his permission to copy his Elements (which he borrowed liberally from others to create). Oddly some of the European Moral Rights, such as the right to be acknowledged as the author, come closer to being axiomatic than actual copyright, even though they aren't recognized in the US in a full form. Euclid probably would have been outraged if the copy you made of his Elements didn't acknowledge him as the writer, but he wouldn't have questioned you making the copy.
As for Disney, again I am not arguing against IP rights, I am all for them. The fact that most of Disney's best movies are openly derivative is an argument for IP rights that are limited in time and scope. That is what I am arguing for, and that is a position which benefits Disney greatly.
I own the car, it is my property, if you steal it you've deprived me of its use. If you damage it, I have to pay to have it repaired. If I do not maintain it it will no longer work, as well, it will on its own slowly deteriorate over time at which point I must replace it or live without.
Nor is intellectual property like that painting I produced. That painting took serious time to create and only one was created. I imagined it, and I painted it. However, someone can freely re-create something like it for themselves, selling it, however, would be considered forgery if they tried to pass it off as their own idea.
Digital though is a whole new medium. There are no forgeries or deprivation in digital medium. It is an exact replica of the original in every way and is never destroyed. "Piracy" as we use the term on the internet isn't even trying to take ownership of or steal the 'property' only redistribute it. People who are 'pirating' are also not trying to make money off of it (megaupload et al. are making money off of the service the 'pirates' host on not the 'property') but provide it (altruistically?) to others, often with the stipulation of "you like it you buy it".
Intellectual Property laws need to take a new medium into consideration, we can't just think of it in analogies to the physical world. It's not the physical world. Before the printing press we never imagined that books could be distributed en masse. That created a new type of property, however still restricted on production. The internet has created another, free production, and we/those in power need to realise that restructuring the internet in order to maintain a poor analogy is not the solution. We are a society of Remix, the internet allows us to this better than ever before. Why should we be squelching those who only want to continue the remix?
I understand many have heard all this before, but it sometimes feels like no one is listening.
As for MPAA/RIAA being the looters; there is no theft of digital products when looked at objectively---only when comparing to the physical medium and when creating analogies for explanation. We've already determined many file sharers purchase the products in addition to sharing. All throughout history we've traded what we love to each other, now we get to copy it to each other. Anecdotally it seems as though the property that is shared and not paid for wouldn't have been paid for in the first place.
Then here comes a large group of distributors claiming they represent artists (which, at some points they do) playing bully on the soccer field. Finding people who weren't the original distributors of their digital mind-share, turning them up-side-down, and ruining their lives by taking as much money from them as the courts will allow. A file-shared 'property' is not removing money from the pockets of the artist. It may stop money from being placed in their hand initially, however increases their audience. How many artists have people discovered solely because of a shared file?
Who's really depriving others of a livelihood? The MPAA/RIAA with obscene lawsuits with awards that can rarely be paid back or file-sharers increasing the audience of the artist/owner at the expense of direct compensation?
The idea that one party can prevent another from exploiting a novel idea (which may have been arrived at independently) does not come out of ethics or natural law. It is a (seemingly) useful legal construct which seems to have served us as a society fairly well.
It is perfectly reasonable to challenge the idea, however, if it is no longer serving us. For instance, consider fashion and the law -- two creative industries which have no such protection and within which imitation is a measure of your success.
Re: "For instance, consider fashion and the law -- two creative industries which have no such protection and within which imitation is a measure of your success.", I have no idea what you're talking about. Gucci and Prada are some of the most prolific enforcers of their IP rights. Counterfeit designer clothing is a huge problem and an area where IP rights enforcement is stronger than in e.g. the music industry.
Your point of imitation in the law creative industry I don't understand to counter on its content. How do people infringe on others' IP rights in the legal industry? How does one in that industry imitate others, or achieve success when one is imitated?
But the real target is the public. You trot someone out, show off his fancy house and his fancy cars, and you go a long way to sell in the media the idea that these people are like drug lords-- making a lot of money doing something criminal.
Yet, I'm not aware of megaupload doing anything criminal. (I do believe that IP is legitimate, from a moral standpoint, but I don't consider the current IP laws to be consistent or moral.)
MegaUpload was a stand up citizen as far as I can see- they did occasionally host copyrighted content, and when they were made aware of it, they took it down. But as a digital-locker provider, it is not they who are morally responsible for the content of their service, but the people who put things in their digital lockers.
Raiding MegaUpload is like seizing every single house in Los Angeles because one of them was a crack den.
It makes no sense. I think the MPAA and RIAA don't really have any power, they're just organizations useful to the government.
This is all about government power, and the government wanting power over the singular medium of communication that it doesn't already control. You can't run a TV news station in the USA without being controlled by the FCC (and they exercise editorial control, though of course for obvious reasons this isn't made public in the news). Same goes for newspapers, etc. But on the internet, for now, you can say whatever you want.
SOPA/PIPA, et. al. are not at all about intellectual property. They're about control. That's why we're going to be seeing them re-introduced with different spins over and over until sometime we're all distracted by something else and they get passed.
This is how we got the PATRIOT ACT. That piece of legislation was sitting on the shelf waiting for 9/11. Well, the 9/11 "we can pass whatever we want so long as we call it terrorism related" age has passed. Both Bush and Obama were trying to pass SOPA type internet control under the guise of fighting terrorism, but they weren't able to do it.
So, they made an attempt with the claim that it was to fight "Piracy".
This claim is obviously bogus. But now a lot of the standard anti-IP types are going on a campaign against the RIAA and MPAA, having been riled up.... which means it might just be easier to pass the legislation to control the internet under some other guise.... maybe attached to the next debt ceiling bill perhaps.
I'm not interested, and not going, to engage in a debate about whether the concept of "Intellectual Property" has any moral legitimacy. I think its wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
This issue is, as with almost everything the government does, all about control. Piracy, or "terrorism", are only excuses to try and get us to accept their grabbing of more power.
[1] Specifically here I mean "Money Laundering", which I've read a legal opinion that says is written in such a way that they can make it stick to anybody, and that this is its purpose. Its the catch all law so that they can always convict. Basically, if you get your paycheck deposited in your checking account, you move some money to your savings account, then you later go and buy something with a credit card, and then pay your credit card bill from the savings account, you've engaged in "money laundering". Apparently the law is completely subjective.
I think there's a fair amount of "projecting" going on here. More and more, I see the intellectual property discussion being couched in the language of "looters, moochers, and parasites" (aptly borrowing from Ayn Rand).
It's undeniable that the RIAA/MPAA are leveraging government to protect their business model (Randian looter behavior), but how you perceive this action has a lot to do with which side of the fence you're on. If you're on the outside looking to get in, the RIAA/MPAA are looters. If you're on the inside looking to control who gets in, those on the outside are moochers.
Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way. The RIAA/MPAA are easy villains, and play the part of the looter very well. They don't even appear to try and compete in the market. They just run to the government for cover. That doesn't, in and of itself, validate the "Megabox disruption" theory.
The RIAA/MPAA don't view their actions any differently than a business owner who calls the police when someone steals a product from the shelf in their store. Yes, I'm completely aware of the difference. It has been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of places. Digital goods can't be stolen, blah blah blah. I get it. I agree to some extent, but I'm asking you to set aside those views for a moment and consider this chess board from both players' perspectives.
The fundamental debate is really about fair use and free speech.
Fair use - To what extent are we allowed to use copyrighted material without compensation of the rights-holder?
Free speech - What is the obligation of a website operator to police the users of said website?
There's an old saying about fundamental rights that goes something like this: The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In matters of intellectual property, things are not as plain as the nose on your face (ta-dum-tss!).