tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post3562156098874462053..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: The Indelicate Imbalancing of Copyright PolicyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-87788623592788619192007-11-18T14:14:00.000-08:002007-11-18T14:14:00.000-08:00Anon: I don't think it's pedantic to specify what ...Anon: I don't think it's pedantic to specify what one means by the vague idea of "the public interest." Focusing on the private interests that copyright hurts is part of any "delicate" balance. That said, I don't think that what Tom wrote in that last comment has to be his last draft of it. Surely he will have a better idea about how to phrase it once the rest of the book has taken shape.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11642450472638874114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-74306478399596043022007-11-18T13:14:00.000-08:002007-11-18T13:14:00.000-08:00That new phrasing reads much more favorably on my ...That new phrasing reads much more favorably on my "avoid statist language" scanner, and I grasp your point much better now. I'm glad I could help! I'm really looking forward to reading more from your book.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11642450472638874114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-84443204553090085452007-11-17T17:08:00.000-08:002007-11-17T17:08:00.000-08:00Anon: I duly note your objection. Now, though, I...Anon: I duly note your objection. Now, though, I think I'll let the matter gestate for a while. I need to let some time pass before I return to the text, so that I can edit it with fresh eyes. But I will keep your admonition in mind, and thank you for it.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-28216258759986331372007-11-16T23:33:00.000-08:002007-11-16T23:33:00.000-08:00Tom, I liked the previous simplistic version bette...Tom, I liked the previous simplistic version better than the gobbledygook you've just constructed. Please revert to sanity; your likely readership isn't dumb. If you try to be overly precise, you'll seem truly pedantic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-17892056754157726152007-11-16T22:24:00.000-08:002007-11-16T22:24:00.000-08:00Dan: You know, I thought about your comment some ...Dan: You know, I thought about your comment some more and decided that I should clarify my text somewhat. Now, instead of constantly talking about the need to balance private and public interests, it says things like, "We should moreover guard against letting copyright maximalists seize the tiller, lest they overemphasize their particular interests to the detriment of other public and private ones." Also, I added a footnote expanding on the idea, saying, "copyright policy aims at offsetting not just private interests against public ones, but rather the select private interests of copyright holders against both: 1) the many private parties who suffer violation of their common law rights under copyright and 2) against the public's interest in the positive externalities generated by free access to expressive works."<BR/><BR/>So thanks, Dan, for making me reconsider my writing!Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-41219049849861668352007-11-16T12:03:00.000-08:002007-11-16T12:03:00.000-08:00Dan: If statism has any justification, it must co...Dan: If statism has any justification, it must come from promoting the public good. Lefties, righties, and liberals (classical ones, natch) agree about that. So I don't think I sound so much lefty as, well, reasonable.<BR/><BR/>I do agree, though, that we should pay a great deal of attention to the private interests affected by copyright. That means, however, that we must take into account the many private interests that it hurts--the interests of each of us whom copyright hinders from using our throats, pens, and printing presses. Other chapters of the book will drive that point home. In this one, I am working with (and against) the "delicate balancing" model that does not invoke the private interests harmed by copyright.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-31560001894330162572007-11-16T11:37:00.000-08:002007-11-16T11:37:00.000-08:00It sounds to me like much of this post, particular...It sounds to me like much of this post, particularly the stuff about "balancing public and private interests," could be taken out of a leftist critique of physical property. Why should we value the public rather than private interests in this case in particular?<BR/><BR/>(This is coming from someone who believes that intellectual property rights are a total fiction. But I don't think that our arguments should be phrased in terms of "the public good."Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11642450472638874114noreply@blogger.com