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

On Sat, Aug 21, 1999, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I am going to be awfully simplistic here, and say that of course the law is all about money. It is about the efficient functioning of society, and in our society that efficient functioning requires money. The law used to be about cows. That changed over time because quite frankly we came to have no use for cows, (bricks of salt, conch shells or even gold) apart from the monetary value. (Lets face it, the time it takes to extract a good porterhouse steak from Daisy can be better spent in modern society).

Society has also decided that for its most efficient functioning it is necessary to grant monopoly rights (read the exclusive right to receive money) over inventions, new expressions and the like, as an incentive to innovate. Whether that decision is right or wrong is open to debate, and I expect a conclusion will be reached about 3 days after the apocalypse.

Now historically the law has been about:-

1. The glorification of the god(s) of a nations choice (and cows -- especially sacred ones);
2. Conquering and subduing the surrounding nations (often in the name of whatever god(s), and to steal their cows);
3. Upholding the glory of the revolutionary victory over mangy capitalist dogs (and making sure everybody has one and only one cow);
4. Money

(You will note there is a large amount of literature surrounding which of these leads to an efficiently functioning society -- I don't recommend you try to read all of it.)

Now as much as I like God, cheer when the All Blacks lose the Rugby, and can sympathise with the Russian workers during and after the industrial revolution, I still prefer my law to be about money. It keeps things nice and simple. There is no doubt that it leads to some substantial injustices on occasion, but generally those societies based on 1 - 3 above had their problems too.

Maybe Mr Junger can think of a better system. Until then, law (including copyright law) is going to be about money. Like it, Hate it or move to a theocratic/nationalist/communist cattle station. Its a free world.

Yours with tongue firmly in cheek,
Michael

Michael do Rozario
<mdr[_at_]abkj.com.au> Received on Mon Aug 23 1999 - 02:44:21 GMT