Re: INFO/NYT: DISCUSS: The Future of the Internet

On Thu, Aug 19, 1999, Peter D. Junger <junger[_at_]samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't dispute the generally accurate -- albeit simplistic --
> > assertion that copyright law is about money. What surprises me,
> > though, is that Nick makes that point as if it were somehow critical
> > of copyright law. In truth, ALL law -- with the possible exception
> > of criminal law -- is about money. Creating copyrightable works or
> > patentable devices is a way some people have of making a living -- and
> > making a living is also "about money." Money is the way in which we
> > compensate and reward people for contributing their skills and products
> > to our society. Taking money away, or forcing people to spend it, is
> > the way in which we most commonly penalize, punish, or harm one another.
> > Damage to another's property is tortious because it forces the other
> > person to spend money for repairs or replacement. Personal injury is
> > tortious because it forces the victim to pay money for medical costs.
> > Even harms that may defy quantification, such as emotional damage, are
> > compensated through money damages. We live in a society for which
> > money -- for better or worse -- is the most readily available measure
> > of both damage and reward. Don't blame the law -- or suggest it is
> > not doing its job -- for being "about money." The law is, in fact, our
> > best weapon against abuses and harms that damage us where it hurts most.
>
> That someone should hold this viewpoint is rather sad; the viewpoint
> itself is nasty.
>
> It is, in fact, the viewpoint of an idiot in the classical sense of
> the term. We all are part of, and supported by, communities and
> politics; we are not, for the most part, monadic individuals slicing
> away our humanity while slithering along our demand curves at the
> cutting edge. And it is the law that in large part gives structure
> to communities and polities (especially if one include custom and
> even courtesy as part of what we define as law). Very little of the
> law is about money.
>
> But then perhaps there really are those who believe that personal
> injuries are tortious because the victims have to pay medical costs.
> I presume that they also believe that it is not a tort to kill someone,
> or to maim someone who cannot afford medical treatment.
>
> That's what I mean by nasty.

The use of the phrase "cannot afford" proves my point that money is the issue. A person who "can't afford" mkedical treatment is harmed MORE, not less, by personal injury ... which is exactly what I was trying to say in noting that forcing others into a position where they have to spend money is, itself, the measure of tortious injury. And that doesn't mean it's all right to kill someone, because death, too, causes injuries that have far-reaching monetary implications. We're not just talking funeral expenses; we're talking ruined lives.

I'm not the monster Mr. Junger would like to think I am; and, in light of our recent exchange about civility in online discussions, I will be expecting his apology for the "idiot" remark.

Bob

Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn, P.C.
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2390
> Phone: 206-340-9619
> Fax: 206-340-9599
> E-mail: rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> Website: http://www.grahamdunn.com/
Received on Fri Aug 20 1999 - 16:08:10 GMT