I should have said "aren't" instead of "won't be". I can't make an argument that this is rent seeking, because I don't believe that it is. I believe, like you, that the MPAA/RIAA are acting in their own interest. Understanding their viewpoint is necessary to hold a productive conversation with them.
>I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.
I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory. It's the framing of this particular theory that has overtones of Atlas Shrugged, in my view. The claim is that the MPAA/RIAA leveraged the government to shut down a potential competitor. This isn't rent seeking by the strict definition, but I never claimed that it was. Rent seeking is only one form of "looter" behavior.
I'd much rather focus on the two fundamental questions. It is not enough to say "we need strong intellectual property laws". That is a very broad statement. We're currently seeing an erosion of fair use, and I think that is a bad thing. We're also seeing an erosion of the protections afforded to the press (whereby "press" includes website operators). I also see this as a bad thing.
I don't want to see website operators acting as enforcers of copyright. That is the government's job. The DMCA already provides the ability for copyright holders to issue take-down notices. Further legislation is pushing the balance too far in favor of rights-holders. I do believe in copyright, and I don't believe "fair use" should include the ability to do what you like with others' work, but website operators ought not be treated as conscripts in the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
EDIT: As I was posting this, someone literally quoted a passage from Atlas Shrugged:
"I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory."
OK, fair enough, but I still think the analogy is a misrepresentation of what really drives people who have strong feelings against intellectual property rights enforcement. There are several camps who can't be lumped together, and whose 'theories' are largely in internal conflict: there are the copyright abolitionists, there is the GPL/FSF crowd, there is the entitled crowd who doesn't really care about reason and just repeatedly says that it's 'unfair' that their 'fair use rights' (of which they have a completely warped view, and which have never existed in the form they imagine in the first place) are being curtailed.
Either way, we disagree on enough other points to continue discussing ;) For example, 'website operators' aren't one group who all deserve indemnification under all circumstances. Megaupload, for example, is a clear case (for the reasonable, non-dogmatic observer) of 'intellectual property infringement facilitation for monetary gain'. Arguably Youtube used to be in its early days. Websites aren't 'press' by definition, and while it's not prima facie reasonable to expect them to be the first conservators of intellectual property laws, they can't just say 'oh it's our users, it's not our responsibility'.
Re: the edit, using that quote in that context makes me angry because it's such a fundamental misrepresentation of what Objectivism and Rand's philosophy stands for and was founded in. Having governments enforce property rights is not the same as what happened in the socialist tyranny that destroyed Rand's family and from which she escaped. Crikes, Rand herself made her fortune from writing screenplays and books, without copyright she would never have been in a position to produce abstract works like her work after The Fountainhead!
>I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.
I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory. It's the framing of this particular theory that has overtones of Atlas Shrugged, in my view. The claim is that the MPAA/RIAA leveraged the government to shut down a potential competitor. This isn't rent seeking by the strict definition, but I never claimed that it was. Rent seeking is only one form of "looter" behavior.
I'd much rather focus on the two fundamental questions. It is not enough to say "we need strong intellectual property laws". That is a very broad statement. We're currently seeing an erosion of fair use, and I think that is a bad thing. We're also seeing an erosion of the protections afforded to the press (whereby "press" includes website operators). I also see this as a bad thing.
I don't want to see website operators acting as enforcers of copyright. That is the government's job. The DMCA already provides the ability for copyright holders to issue take-down notices. Further legislation is pushing the balance too far in favor of rights-holders. I do believe in copyright, and I don't believe "fair use" should include the ability to do what you like with others' work, but website operators ought not be treated as conscripts in the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
EDIT: As I was posting this, someone literally quoted a passage from Atlas Shrugged:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505458