Disqus - Latest Comments for SolveigS

Re: Whither the Social Contract?

SolveigS — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:15:43 -0000

IJ, alas, is an isolated exception.

Re: Reed Hundt versus Michael Powell–Observations

SolveigS — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:07:18 -0000

re: "plainly true" ... I will cheerfully agree, when presented with credible evidence. Spouse noted to me that some former CNN reporters had come forward with reports that they had been asked to "try another angle" on early stories--but this has a number of possible explanations. Conspiracies are awfully hard to conceal when significant numbers of people are involved.

re: "sustainability" Building modern infrastructure on top of relatively minimal development is one thing. But anything done in the U.S. (various proposals have been made already) will have to be overlaid on complex existing systems. Whatever the merits of what they are doing in China (and I thought that you considered any positive mention of China to be a symptom of sympathy with oppression, BTW) it will have limited application here.

re: "constitution." You seem to argue as follows: The consitution is the government. One may not point out a regime's susceptibility to abuse, by noting actual examples of such abuse. This all makes very little sense.

Note: On top of a good education, I've been knocking around in the policy area for over 12 years. This includes public speaking in front of expert audiences eager to catch any errors I make--an experience that sensitizes the mental filters mightily. You may wish to avoid comments premised on the idea that I am uttering absurdities that any buffoon could refute. If I were in the habit of doing so, more people would have let me know they think so than a couple of cranks. A patronizing tone is not scoring you points; you just look like a fool.

Re: On The Shape of the Libertarian “IP” Debate

SolveigS — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:27:19 -0000

Whoops. Neither Epstein nor Delong are actually maximalists, who favor "longer, broader, and stricter." They're strong supporters of the fundamentals... but in the substantial grey areas around the edges can go either way. See Epstein on Eldred, for example (opposing extension). Delong went the other way on Eldred (favoring extension) but disfavors criminal copyright.

Re shape: a cube.

Re the utilitarians versus the natural lawyers (a Milton term, love it), I ended up going on and on about that and posted later. "Shape" is in the Title.

Re: Finkelstein on Singleton and DeCSS

SolveigS — Mon, 15 May 2006 14:25:08 -0000

Oh dear. DeCSS certainly was "related" to the efforts to build an open source DVD player. It is just that the nature of the relationship is somewhat... rocky and contentious.

Re: Loading More into the Shopping Cart

SolveigS — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:14:19 -0000

I do think it is important to recollect that the "abundance" of IP only arises *after* it has been created. I'm not aware of anything better than just plain old market pricing for determining "how much" is necessary to encourage production. If Rambo creators charge too much for Rambo, it is an invitation to a competitor to come in and charge less. And, I do think that the difference between zero marginal cost and almost zero is... more difficult than you think. Shopping carts are one thing, indeed, but pharmaceuticals are another . . . (and for the record Jim D's shopping cart post was not intended to be taken quite so seriously as it has been).

Re comments: IPcentralits prefer to respond to other blogs because they tend to be more substantive than comments, and less given to name-calling. We also accept comments by email, and with permission repost thoughtful ones on IPcentral.

The conflict between physical rights and IP has been often noted, but is, I think, overly simplistic. Contract rights and physical rights also conflict. So do easements. There are benefits in keeping physical rights absolutely simple and pure; but in a world where capital and value is increasingly intellectual in nature, there are also benefits in setting out some ground rules regarding trades, etc.

It is very difficult to make an interesting case either for or against IP if one *assumes* that physical property is absolute. Assume Principle A is inviolable. Principle B conflicts. Principle B must be bad. There is no substance here! If, on the other hand, one starts with an actual *argument* about why physical property is important (as Richard Epstein has done), then it gets interesting and much more difficult. The two are not identical, but they are sufficiently similar to merit some head-scratching.

Re: Tim Lee Betting Pool

SolveigS — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:39:03 -0000

Hey, what the heck would we do with him? I already have ... er ... enough responsibilities.

: )