Tom Watson says the “Sunday Times published a thoughtful contribution to the filesharing debate from Peter Mandelson.” He’s wrong on two counts. First, the piece appeared in Saturday’s Times. Second, it is not “thoughtful.”
I have three problems with it. First is this:
I have three problems with it. First is this:
Taking something for nothing, without permission, and with no compensation for the person who created and owns it, is wrong. Simple as that.
Whether you think this assertion is right or wrong is beside the point. The problem is that it is just that - an assertion, It (literally) begs the questions; do creators’ ownership rights extend so far as to rule out file-sharing? On what basis do such rights rest? A thoughtful writer would tell us. Mandelson doesn’t.
Second, there’s this:
Second, there’s this:
Our creative businesses drive much of our economy. They provide not only tax revenues and jobs but also ensure that Britain punches above its weight on the global cultural stage.
What’s this "our"? What's he saying here - that file-sharing is all right if we only do it to dirty furriners?
There is a good argument that (some sorts of) property rights generate economic success. Mandelson seems to be reversing this, and claiming that economic success should generate property rights.
Third, and most objectionable, is the line cited by Watson:
There is a good argument that (some sorts of) property rights generate economic success. Mandelson seems to be reversing this, and claiming that economic success should generate property rights.
Third, and most objectionable, is the line cited by Watson:
To those who have raised their voices about the proposed changes this week, let me say that I hear their concerns. I have read their blogs and can live with the abuse.
Note here the blithe refusal to actually engage with their concerns. Nowhere in his article does Mandelson cite a precise blogger’s argument in order to dispute it.
What’s going on here is a form of legitimation ritual. This takes two forms.
1. Smear one‘s opponents. They do mere abuse. By implication, rational “thoughtful” argument is the monopoly of the great and good such as him.
2. In not engaging properly with bloggers, Mandelson is reinforcing the sense of distance between the (hereditary) ruling class such as himself and the ordinary public. The thing about proper debate is that it takes place between equals. But Mandelson does not - cannot - countenance even such a chimerical equality. The mystique of the ruling class must be preserved.
You might have an obvious objection here: the government is in fact consulting about its policy upon its policy of “addressing the problem of illicit use of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing technology to exchange unlawful copies of copyright material” (my italicized words are all, I think, examples of question-begging.)
We must, however, distinguish between two forms of consultation, indeed of democracy: preference aggregation on the one hand, and - to use Sen's term - public reason on the other.
The two are not just distinct, but in some senses opposed. Preference aggregation gives weight to irrational preferences, or to those with loud voices and an inflated sense of their own entitlements. It heeds what Tom calls the “spasms of the cretinocracy.”
Public reason, however, involves an effort to slough off our own interests and biases, and ask: What is right? What is just?
I’m not at all sure which of these forms the consultation will take. Here, though, is a test. If the consultation involves public reason, it will give little weight to either the stated vested interests of the music industry or to those of downloaders. It will instead heed careful thinking and proper research as to the relative weight of these interests. And some of this research - such as this new paper (pdf) - calculates that downloading has generated an “immense gain in total welfare.”
What’s going on here is a form of legitimation ritual. This takes two forms.
1. Smear one‘s opponents. They do mere abuse. By implication, rational “thoughtful” argument is the monopoly of the great and good such as him.
2. In not engaging properly with bloggers, Mandelson is reinforcing the sense of distance between the (hereditary) ruling class such as himself and the ordinary public. The thing about proper debate is that it takes place between equals. But Mandelson does not - cannot - countenance even such a chimerical equality. The mystique of the ruling class must be preserved.
You might have an obvious objection here: the government is in fact consulting about its policy upon its policy of “addressing the problem of illicit use of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing technology to exchange unlawful copies of copyright material” (my italicized words are all, I think, examples of question-begging.)
We must, however, distinguish between two forms of consultation, indeed of democracy: preference aggregation on the one hand, and - to use Sen's term - public reason on the other.
The two are not just distinct, but in some senses opposed. Preference aggregation gives weight to irrational preferences, or to those with loud voices and an inflated sense of their own entitlements. It heeds what Tom calls the “spasms of the cretinocracy.”
Public reason, however, involves an effort to slough off our own interests and biases, and ask: What is right? What is just?
I’m not at all sure which of these forms the consultation will take. Here, though, is a test. If the consultation involves public reason, it will give little weight to either the stated vested interests of the music industry or to those of downloaders. It will instead heed careful thinking and proper research as to the relative weight of these interests. And some of this research - such as this new paper (pdf) - calculates that downloading has generated an “immense gain in total welfare.”
Have you joined the Pirate Party yet, Chris? I think you ought to.
Posted by: Philip Hunt | August 31, 2009 at 05:49 PM
FYI: http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf
Posted by: Moggio (from France) | September 01, 2009 at 06:21 PM
And a lot of it reflects a switch from bank deposits to securities; foreigners “other investments” in the UK, http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html
Posted by: rolex submariner | December 27, 2009 at 05:00 PM