I'm happy to run through the evidence that the Framers were not strict utilitarians as Mike thinks. The fact is that they held multiple views. If Mike wants to nuanced, I'll be here.
Well, since the abstract states his paper "exposes the near-universal misuse of history by lawyers and scholars today" its pretty much implicit in his argument that he's in the minority.
Your comments are just as high-level and non-nuanced as Mike's. Mossoff makes hundreds of points, and you're both trying to gloss over the whole thing as being "the minority view." That's lazy and unpersuasive.
I'm hoping that Mike will delve into the actual arguments rather than trying to brush the whole thing off. I've never seen Mike actually prove that IP is solely utilitarian. Nor do I think he can. The argument is fundamental to what Techdirt is all about, yet I don't think he can actually back it up.
Mossoff's view is a minority view, not supported by historical facts. Dotan Oliar's analysis of the founder's intent is *much* more compelling in that it doesn't just rely on Locke, but on the actual historical record. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=924190
Mossoff, himself, is guilty of rewriting history in many ways concerning Locke, who fought *again* early predecessers of copyright, and clearly viewed it not as a natural right, but as an economic, utilitarian right.
Do you actually have any evidence that Mossoff's views are the minority and that Oliar's are "*much* more compelling," or are you just playing the "my experts are awesome and yours suck!" game?
Shall we go into the nuances of your argument that IP only about utilitarianism? I think it's fundamental to your "let's abolish IP!" viewpoint, and I think it's totally bullshit.
Except, of course, that patents weren't actually based on "moral rights" at all. Hegarty is making that part up. It was an economic right designed solely for the purpose of "promoting the progress" of "the useful arts."
I'll note too that I think it's really strange how you insist that authors and inventors should have no natural claim whatsoever to the fruits of their intellectual labor. I honestly don't get it.
But you're not making sense. How does sending less takedown notices to Google have anything to do with the remedies that SOPA would have made available, such as injunctions against payment processors and advertising networks, DNS blocking, etc.? SOPA's remedies were in addition to the power to send takedown notices. Every single person knew that takedown notices existed, so it's not like they were pulling a fast one by not sending as many notices. This article is just more FUD. I really wonder why someone as smart as Mike wastes his time with this conspiracy theory nonsense. I guess people like you eat it up.
However, as the ensuing deluge of DMCA takedown requests shows, perhaps the real reason was that the big studios and labels (many of whom are near the top of the list of DMCA notice senders) apparently didn't want to have to actually do the work required of them under the law. In other words, as many people noted during the SOPA fight, it was a case of the big copyright players running to Congress to get them out of having to do some work.
I'm not seeing the connection. What does SOPA have to do with DMCA takedown notices?
Isn't it obvious? The numbers don't support his CwF+RtB thesis.
There could be a total of like 10 downloads, in which case the sample size is too small to be meaningful. It would be more appropriate to give us the actual numbers.
I agree that "they're trying to get whatever they can out of it," but I don't think there's even a remote chance that the Court will address anything other than the actual damages awarded in this particular case. To even frame the question presented this way is ridiculous since they knows the Court won't answer it as is, IMO.
I think he's going to have to wait for someone to get hit with statutory damages on 10,000 songs. Such multiplicity, I think, would be a much stronger case. But for the twenty-four tracks that she's on the hook for at the lower end of the damages range, that argument won't fly. The Court's not going to address some metaphysical hypothetical. They're going to look at the 9K she's liable for per track, and that amount isn't violative of due process.
K.A.D. Camara and Charles R. Nelson. Two names I would never want to see on my petition for cert. Good grief. Could she be in worse hands? Even the question presented is completely idiotic: "Is there any constitutional limit to the statutory damages that can be imposed for downloading music online?"
The answer is, of course, yes. There is a constitutional limit. The question should be whether the damages in this case exceed that limit. I can't wait to read the whole thing. Thanks for posting, Mike.
And, again, you're assuming that it absolutely is infringement.
I'm not saying it absolutely was infringement. But the fact that they felt they had to change the post indicates that they weren't so sure that it wasn't infringing. If they were sure that it was fair use, they wouldn't have changed it. The fact that they changed it indicates that they didn't think fair use was a lock. My point was that by changing it they haven't erased the infringement whatsoever.
A lawsuit under the circumstances would seem really, really stupid. Gawker has a pretty good track record on these kinds of lawsuits.
And they might even win. My point though is that all they did was make things worse. They should have left it alone or taken it down. Rubbing it in her face while she's obviously upset about it was not the move I would have made. But I can see how such a move would meet with your approval.
Of course, by adding commentary, Gawker is clearly trying to show that it's quoting was fair use.
Or they're attempting to turn what was infringement into fair use. But by adding the text and trying to make it into fair use, they are only admitting that it wasn't fair use to begin with. Even if this new use is fair, that doesn't negate the prior infringement. And now they're just pissing them off, making it more likely that they are sued. Good times.
" Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices." -- Thomas Jefferson
"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good." -- James Madison
"I believe, Sir, that I may with safety take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honourable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Company's monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essex's monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good." -- Thomas Macauley
Copyright has long been referred to as a monopoly, because that's what it is. It is a monopoly on that particular work.
Instead of quoting the Founding Fathers, who no doubt called it a "monopoly," why don't you pull out those fancy economics books that you think are so keen and read for us the modern definition of the word "monopoly." A monopoly--the "evil" kind--is more than the control over the market for one work, especially when every other person on earth can legally compete in that same market with that very work. Give me a break with these silly word games in lieu of actual, substantive arguments. You know damn well that we don't normally refer to one's "monopoly" over a single piece of property as a "monopoly" in the evil economic sense.
Whether or not that's *GOOD* or *BAD* is a DIFFERENT discussion than the one we're having here. The problem is that YOU keep wanting to turn this descriptive argument into a normative one. I don't think you do this because you're dishonest. Just that you're so focused on the law, you don't realize when we're having a discussion about economics and you feel the need to obnoxiously pull the conversation away from that which you're ignorant of to one where you can pretend to show off what you think is your brilliance.
That's not it at all. I'm trying to discuss your broader argument that copyright is not property. I'm not only talking about the topic of this post. Sorry if that wasn't clear. We've only come up with two scenarios in a real person's life where it actually matters whether copyright is called "property," and that's in the context of the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clauses. Those clauses explicitly protect "property," so whether copyright is "property" under those clauses is dispositive of whether those clauses protect copyright. So there it literally matters to real people whether it's "property."
But in your models it doesn't matter what you call things--what matters is its nature. Some economists choose to believe that property requires the thing to be naturally excludable (as you do, and that's fine), and others have no problem recognizing that property is a broader concept than that and they don't define it so narrowly (and that's fine too). In the end, both sides of course recognize that it's not naturally excludable, and that's all that matters. Again, whatever label an economist uses for something doesn't matter, and it just doesn't matter in any real people's lives. Whether Mike calls it "property" in his models doesn't affect anyone's life in a concrete way.
That's not at all like with whether copyright is "property" as the Constitution uses that word. There, it really matters in real people's lives whether it's "property" or not. Let me add another scenario where it matters that I just saw yesterday: Someone in a will bequests "all my property, tangible and intangible to my wife." That testator happened to own copyright rights. Now do you think that bequest of "property" transferred ownership of the copyright rights to the wife? You bet, because copyrights are "property" that form part of a person's estate. So that's three examples of where it actually matters in a real person's life whether it's called "property." You still haven't even come up with one why it matters in your models what you call it.
AJ, you have this entirely backwards. Economics is not "theory." Yes, there are theoretical aspects of economics, but economics *describes what is happening.* There are "models" that are a part of it, but we're not discussing theoretical models here. We're talking reality. So I don't know why you keep arguing that I'm talking about theory.
Economists ATTEMPT to describe what is happening. Different economists think that different theories and models are important, and lots of economists think that lots of other economists are wrong. You make it sound economics = hard science. It's a social science.
As others have pointed out, the artificial situation is the law. If you wiped out the laws, economics would still apply, but the laws would not.
The law, not economics, actually define and control copyright. Your models are meaningless. Take away the law and there is no copyright.
This is just stupid. Economics EXPLAINS what's happening. Law is what's artificial. We're not talking about "theoretical models" we're talking about explaining how the world works. If every "theoretical model of economics disappeared tomorrow" the *actual economics would still stand* because they're DESCRIPTIVE of what's happening.
Economics ATTEMPTS to explain the real world. To say that these models are more real than the world that they attempt to explain is silly. And you know damn well that whatever secret models you're using, there are tons of other economists convinced that your models are shit. So stop pretending like there's certainty and consensus with your models. Your models attempt to describe what's real, but they are not real. And I'm sure you know that the models can never perfectly describe reality because the real world is not a maximized function and Pareto efficiency doesn't really exist.
However, if copyright laws disappeared tomorrow, the world wouldn't continue to pretend that there's copyright.
Right. Take away copyright law and there is no copyright. Take away all of the competing models from economists who all think their models are right while everyone else's models are wrong, and there would still be the fact of copyright.
So, your entire premise is backwards. You don't understand economics and you somehow think that law represents a permanent reality, rather than a specific choice of a small group of lawmakers -- which frequently changes.
Of course the law reflects the views of the legislator's that enacted it. Do you really think I don't understand this? All laws reflect a plurality of views. And those lawmakers aren't only concerned about efficiency, as you appear to be. There's more to copyright than efficiency. If your models don't reflect that, then they are incomplete. All models are incomplete though, so you're not alone.
That is like saying "your theory of gravity doesn't matter."
Good example (I was an astrophysics minor). There are lots of competing theories of what causes gravity. Nobody knows for sure what causes it, but we all know it exists.
No, I'm saying Professor Bell may have convinced me that I was wrong in suggesting that copyright is property as defined under the due process clause.
I look forward to seeing his arguments. Considering that the Supreme Court has had no trouble saying that other IP rights are property under the Takings Clause, I have my doubts that copyright would be any different.
Regardless, you didn't address my point about the difference between normative and descriptive arguments. I have noticed a trend on your part to latch onto what theories reach the results you think are correct. You don't seem to care whether that theory is descriptive or normative. Believe what you want, but it's sloppy. I'm reminded of when you claimed that Mossoff was intellectually dishonest because he was describing the actual law and not subscribing to normative arguments as you do. I do not know much about economics, but I know enough of you to be practically certain that your economics views are similarly biased and skewed.
The *economics* are 100% real. The models are attempts to describe the reality that exists. Models or not, the economics are 100% real.
And what about all of the other economists who think your secret models are wrong? You keep pretending like your models are the models. We both know that there are lots of other models that differ than yours put forth by other economists who think you're completely wrong. How can that be real?
I can only assume your approach to economics mirrors what I've seen of your approach to law: you work backwards, ignore the parts you don't like, and you let confirmation bias do the heavy lifting. Sorry, but since you don't ever produce these secret models, it's impossible to give them any weight at all. I've not gotten the impression that you're a math guy anyway, so I have trouble picturing you doing the complex math anyway.
The laws, however, are merely the decisions of a small group of lawmakers, and they change a lot over time. To argue that one is "real" and one is "not" is ignorance in the extreme.
The laws are real because the words in Title 17 actually define and control people's rights. Yes, of course the laws are the reflection of a plurality of views. Unlike your secret models that I'm sure only look at a few select things very narrowly, laws are the product of a broad consensus of views. Your models are completely meaningless and could disappear tomorrow and no one would know. Change even one word in Title 17 and people's rights could drastically change. Models = fake. Law = real. That you are pretending like your secret models are more real than the real world that they attempt to model is hilarious.
This is why we keep trying to explain to you that your focus on the legal definition is silly. The legal definition has NO IMPACT on economics, because the economics is WHAT IS HAPPENING.
No, I'm sure your secret models are based on all kinds of assumptions, and other people's models are based on other assumptions. I'm sure you think that copyright is strictly a utilitarian model, but the fact is that there are a lot of theories that combine to form the law of copyright, i.e., actual copyright. Economics look at the what is happening and try to make sense of it. It tries to predict what would happen to y if we change x. Why you pretend that these models are more real than the thing they are modeling is beyond me.
Sorry, but you aren't making much sense with this. I can only assume that this is part of a larger trend of yours that I notice where, since you don't like the law or reality, you pretend that something else (models that you made up in this case) is somehow more real than the real thing you don't like.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Claims It's Misunderstood: It's Really Just Trying To Help Everyone Sift Through And Find Good Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm happy to run through the evidence that the Framers were not strict utilitarians as Mike thinks. The fact is that they held multiple views. If Mike wants to nuanced, I'll be here.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Claims It's Misunderstood: It's Really Just Trying To Help Everyone Sift Through And Find Good Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your comments are just as high-level and non-nuanced as Mike's. Mossoff makes hundreds of points, and you're both trying to gloss over the whole thing as being "the minority view." That's lazy and unpersuasive.
I'm hoping that Mike will delve into the actual arguments rather than trying to brush the whole thing off. I've never seen Mike actually prove that IP is solely utilitarian. Nor do I think he can. The argument is fundamental to what Techdirt is all about, yet I don't think he can actually back it up.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Claims It's Misunderstood: It's Really Just Trying To Help Everyone Sift Through And Find Good Patents
Re: Re:
Mossoff, himself, is guilty of rewriting history in many ways concerning Locke, who fought *again* early predecessers of copyright, and clearly viewed it not as a natural right, but as an economic, utilitarian right.
Do you actually have any evidence that Mossoff's views are the minority and that Oliar's are "*much* more compelling," or are you just playing the "my experts are awesome and yours suck!" game?
Shall we go into the nuances of your argument that IP only about utilitarianism? I think it's fundamental to your "let's abolish IP!" viewpoint, and I think it's totally bullshit.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Claims It's Misunderstood: It's Really Just Trying To Help Everyone Sift Through And Find Good Patents
I think perhaps it's you that's rewriting history, as the Framers held natural rights views. See, e.g., http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892062 & http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1983614
I'll note too that I think it's really strange how you insist that authors and inventors should have no natural claim whatsoever to the fruits of their intellectual labor. I honestly don't get it.
On the post: Funny How Copyright Holders Only Ramped Up Google DMCA Takedowns After SOPA Failed
Re: Re:
On the post: Funny How Copyright Holders Only Ramped Up Google DMCA Takedowns After SOPA Failed
I'm not seeing the connection. What does SOPA have to do with DMCA takedown notices?
On the post: Infographic: People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option
Re: Re: How much total was received?
There could be a total of like 10 downloads, in which case the sample size is too small to be meaningful. It would be more appropriate to give us the actual numbers.
On the post: Infographic: People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option
Re:
Sure, I'll comment. Good for TD for bringing in some money with their "free" model. I like it, and I know already that it works for some people.
On the post: Infographic: People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option
Re: Re:
They don't believe in paying for content.
I spend lots of money on content and the arts. Probably more than most, if I had to guess.
On the post: Infographic: People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option
Re:
Nope. I haven't downloaded a single one.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re:
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
The answer is, of course, yes. There is a constitutional limit. The question should be whether the damages in this case exceed that limit. I can't wait to read the whole thing. Thanks for posting, Mike.
On the post: Gawker Threatened For Publishing Quotes From Book Proposal, Adds 'Commentary' In Response
Re: Re:
I'm not saying it absolutely was infringement. But the fact that they felt they had to change the post indicates that they weren't so sure that it wasn't infringing. If they were sure that it was fair use, they wouldn't have changed it. The fact that they changed it indicates that they didn't think fair use was a lock. My point was that by changing it they haven't erased the infringement whatsoever.
A lawsuit under the circumstances would seem really, really stupid. Gawker has a pretty good track record on these kinds of lawsuits.
And they might even win. My point though is that all they did was make things worse. They should have left it alone or taken it down. Rubbing it in her face while she's obviously upset about it was not the move I would have made. But I can see how such a move would meet with your approval.
On the post: Gawker Threatened For Publishing Quotes From Book Proposal, Adds 'Commentary' In Response
Or they're attempting to turn what was infringement into fair use. But by adding the text and trying to make it into fair use, they are only admitting that it wasn't fair use to begin with. Even if this new use is fair, that doesn't negate the prior infringement. And now they're just pissing them off, making it more likely that they are sued. Good times.
On the post: Rep. Marsha Blackburn's Staffer Lashes Out At Derek Khanna And RSC Report
Re: Re:
"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good." -- James Madison
"I believe, Sir, that I may with safety take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honourable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Company's monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essex's monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good." -- Thomas Macauley
Copyright has long been referred to as a monopoly, because that's what it is. It is a monopoly on that particular work.
Instead of quoting the Founding Fathers, who no doubt called it a "monopoly," why don't you pull out those fancy economics books that you think are so keen and read for us the modern definition of the word "monopoly." A monopoly--the "evil" kind--is more than the control over the market for one work, especially when every other person on earth can legally compete in that same market with that very work. Give me a break with these silly word games in lieu of actual, substantive arguments. You know damn well that we don't normally refer to one's "monopoly" over a single piece of property as a "monopoly" in the evil economic sense.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @joe
That's not it at all. I'm trying to discuss your broader argument that copyright is not property. I'm not only talking about the topic of this post. Sorry if that wasn't clear. We've only come up with two scenarios in a real person's life where it actually matters whether copyright is called "property," and that's in the context of the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clauses. Those clauses explicitly protect "property," so whether copyright is "property" under those clauses is dispositive of whether those clauses protect copyright. So there it literally matters to real people whether it's "property."
But in your models it doesn't matter what you call things--what matters is its nature. Some economists choose to believe that property requires the thing to be naturally excludable (as you do, and that's fine), and others have no problem recognizing that property is a broader concept than that and they don't define it so narrowly (and that's fine too). In the end, both sides of course recognize that it's not naturally excludable, and that's all that matters. Again, whatever label an economist uses for something doesn't matter, and it just doesn't matter in any real people's lives. Whether Mike calls it "property" in his models doesn't affect anyone's life in a concrete way.
That's not at all like with whether copyright is "property" as the Constitution uses that word. There, it really matters in real people's lives whether it's "property" or not. Let me add another scenario where it matters that I just saw yesterday: Someone in a will bequests "all my property, tangible and intangible to my wife." That testator happened to own copyright rights. Now do you think that bequest of "property" transferred ownership of the copyright rights to the wife? You bet, because copyrights are "property" that form part of a person's estate. So that's three examples of where it actually matters in a real person's life whether it's called "property." You still haven't even come up with one why it matters in your models what you call it.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @joe
Do you have Skype, Netflix, and do you drink beer?
I'm willing to give up a night to watch a terrible romantic comedy, drink, and discuss copyright with you.
Just pick a date.
LMFAO!
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @joe
Economists ATTEMPT to describe what is happening. Different economists think that different theories and models are important, and lots of economists think that lots of other economists are wrong. You make it sound economics = hard science. It's a social science.
As others have pointed out, the artificial situation is the law. If you wiped out the laws, economics would still apply, but the laws would not.
The law, not economics, actually define and control copyright. Your models are meaningless. Take away the law and there is no copyright.
This is just stupid. Economics EXPLAINS what's happening. Law is what's artificial. We're not talking about "theoretical models" we're talking about explaining how the world works. If every "theoretical model of economics disappeared tomorrow" the *actual economics would still stand* because they're DESCRIPTIVE of what's happening.
Economics ATTEMPTS to explain the real world. To say that these models are more real than the world that they attempt to explain is silly. And you know damn well that whatever secret models you're using, there are tons of other economists convinced that your models are shit. So stop pretending like there's certainty and consensus with your models. Your models attempt to describe what's real, but they are not real. And I'm sure you know that the models can never perfectly describe reality because the real world is not a maximized function and Pareto efficiency doesn't really exist.
However, if copyright laws disappeared tomorrow, the world wouldn't continue to pretend that there's copyright.
Right. Take away copyright law and there is no copyright. Take away all of the competing models from economists who all think their models are right while everyone else's models are wrong, and there would still be the fact of copyright.
So, your entire premise is backwards. You don't understand economics and you somehow think that law represents a permanent reality, rather than a specific choice of a small group of lawmakers -- which frequently changes.
Of course the law reflects the views of the legislator's that enacted it. Do you really think I don't understand this? All laws reflect a plurality of views. And those lawmakers aren't only concerned about efficiency, as you appear to be. There's more to copyright than efficiency. If your models don't reflect that, then they are incomplete. All models are incomplete though, so you're not alone.
That is like saying "your theory of gravity doesn't matter."
Good example (I was an astrophysics minor). There are lots of competing theories of what causes gravity. Nobody knows for sure what causes it, but we all know it exists.
No, I'm saying Professor Bell may have convinced me that I was wrong in suggesting that copyright is property as defined under the due process clause.
I look forward to seeing his arguments. Considering that the Supreme Court has had no trouble saying that other IP rights are property under the Takings Clause, I have my doubts that copyright would be any different.
Regardless, you didn't address my point about the difference between normative and descriptive arguments. I have noticed a trend on your part to latch onto what theories reach the results you think are correct. You don't seem to care whether that theory is descriptive or normative. Believe what you want, but it's sloppy. I'm reminded of when you claimed that Mossoff was intellectually dishonest because he was describing the actual law and not subscribing to normative arguments as you do. I do not know much about economics, but I know enough of you to be practically certain that your economics views are similarly biased and skewed.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what about all of the other economists who think your secret models are wrong? You keep pretending like your models are the models. We both know that there are lots of other models that differ than yours put forth by other economists who think you're completely wrong. How can that be real?
I can only assume your approach to economics mirrors what I've seen of your approach to law: you work backwards, ignore the parts you don't like, and you let confirmation bias do the heavy lifting. Sorry, but since you don't ever produce these secret models, it's impossible to give them any weight at all. I've not gotten the impression that you're a math guy anyway, so I have trouble picturing you doing the complex math anyway.
The laws, however, are merely the decisions of a small group of lawmakers, and they change a lot over time. To argue that one is "real" and one is "not" is ignorance in the extreme.
The laws are real because the words in Title 17 actually define and control people's rights. Yes, of course the laws are the reflection of a plurality of views. Unlike your secret models that I'm sure only look at a few select things very narrowly, laws are the product of a broad consensus of views. Your models are completely meaningless and could disappear tomorrow and no one would know. Change even one word in Title 17 and people's rights could drastically change. Models = fake. Law = real. That you are pretending like your secret models are more real than the real world that they attempt to model is hilarious.
This is why we keep trying to explain to you that your focus on the legal definition is silly. The legal definition has NO IMPACT on economics, because the economics is WHAT IS HAPPENING.
No, I'm sure your secret models are based on all kinds of assumptions, and other people's models are based on other assumptions. I'm sure you think that copyright is strictly a utilitarian model, but the fact is that there are a lot of theories that combine to form the law of copyright, i.e., actual copyright. Economics look at the what is happening and try to make sense of it. It tries to predict what would happen to y if we change x. Why you pretend that these models are more real than the thing they are modeling is beyond me.
Sorry, but you aren't making much sense with this. I can only assume that this is part of a larger trend of yours that I notice where, since you don't like the law or reality, you pretend that something else (models that you made up in this case) is somehow more real than the real thing you don't like.
Next >>