Libertarians and IP: Shall we replace the state with "principled" thoughtlessness?
I commented previously on Stephan Kinsella’s Mises Blog post: “The L. Neil Smith – FreeTalkLive Copyright Dispute”; allow me to note the the response I received from Stephan and my reply (emphasis added):
I don’t think the shire guys did anything wrong at all, I must say. Maybe Neil should have been given a bit more prominent credit,but it’s clear that he doesn’t want that at all–he doesn’t want them to have used it at all. Given this, what compromise can there be? He has no right to stop them. Period.
As for Ian’s overreaction: you know he tried to apologize, and then Smith wrote the reply “Little Criminals” linked above in Update 3 of my post. Do you still think Ian’s reaction was inappropriate?
Stephan:
Thanks for your note.
My point is that people should be discussing not simply IP principles but how people tick and how cooperation and community work. If you want to operate without a state, people are going to have to start thinking seriously about elemental issues of how to get along.
You prefer to talk about principles, but it’s pretty obvious here that the chief issue is both parties getting onto self-righteous snits because Freeman and others who reworked Smith’s “Covenant” completely ignored Smith before rolling out their Declaration. This elicited a nasty response from Smith, and then both sides preferred blustering, public posturing, line drawing and name-calling to any attempt at private discussion or mollification.
Isn’t rule No. 1 the Golden Rule – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? And Isn’t Rule No. 0 the Consideration Rule: Before you act, think about who might be affected by your actions, and how they might perceive them? (Actually, just made that one up right now, but it’s simple common sense and good manners.) Where did Ian Freeman display any foresight, consideration or concern for how Smith might respond – either in advance, or in his “apology”?
Yes, I listened to the podcast, in which Freeman reads from his completely insincere and insulting “apology”. I think his co-host Maｒk Edge was completely right in criticizing Freeman over it. Did Freeman make another apology after that that I missed?
Yes, it’s clear NOW that Smith doesn’t want Freeman to have used the Covenant at all, but who knows how he would have reacted if he’d been given notice of the Shire attempt before it was finished, invited to participate, or given a chance to review/comment before it was made available to sign? If at that time he was still adamantly opposed, the Shire guys might also have decided to do further wordsmithing to avoid directly lifting from Smith.
No, there’s not alot of room for compromise now, but that just proves my point. The hard feelings very well could have been avoided; what good do they serve now, other than to reinforce one’s selection of principles that conveniently support one’s position, while interfering with an open discussion?
Tom
ShroomyD, golly jee willickers. Thanks for the kind words.
I like your style!