Shorter Adam Mossoff

I love it when people “summarize” or quote me out of context. It’s a classic rhetorical technique—likely pioneered by the ancient Greek Sophists—and it’s effective, because it makes it so easy for one to knock down the now reframed argument that the opponent never made. It also goes under the name: strawman argument or the fallacy of half-truth.

Mr. Swartz has conveniently ignored the following portion of my essay—and I say conveniently because it is the one thing that makes his claim that my position is “laughable” workable:

“This essay will describe in an abbreviated fashion how the property theory that Epstein explicates in Liberty vs. Property might respond to the specific claims advanced by the Internet exceptionalists. Accordingly, its purpose is not to offer a complete account of why digital copyright is property. That is not possible in a short commentary piece … The justification of the property theory itself is in Epstein?s essay, and in other articles already written or yet to be produced.”

posted by Adam Mossoff at February 1, 2004 10:52 AM #

Actually, I did cover that: “While I can’t go into the full details of why digital copyright is property, suffice it to say it is obvious”.

Now, being serious, I think I understand the essentials of your argument: you can look at property in Epstein’s way, copyright has this same structure (which we call property), ergo copyright is property. But a) this isn’t really a particularly compelling argument, and b) it’s just bizarre to dress it up with aspersions and insults like this.

posted by Aaron Swartz at February 1, 2004 11:17 AM #

In the end, “is copyright property?” is really just a question of framing, like “are tax cuts relief?” Those who want to lower taxes will note their harms and their structural similarity to government torture. Those who want to raise taxes will note their benefits and the policy reasons for them. But neither side can win the debate because we’re discussing frames and not facts. There is no right way to think about things.

posted by Aaron Swartz at February 1, 2004 11:40 AM #

First, saying that something is “not particularly compelling” is not an argument: it’s a bald, conclusional assertion. If you have an argument to make, then I suggest that you make it or I will spend my time addressing Lessig and others who do.

The same point applies to the ad hominem claims in your point (b).

At this point, I’m counting at least 3 running logical fallacies; maybe you should take a basic course in logic before engaging me. Your comment in your last posting, i.e., “[t]here is no right way to think about things,” is a particularly compelling example of the fallacy of self-exclusion.

Finally, I disagree with your alleged analytical-synthetic dichotomy, i.e., an absolute breach between conceptual versus factual claims. The principles that one induces and then reapplies to the world are true and practical.

To analogize your asserted analytical-synthetic dichomtoy to claims about moral principle: disputes over “honesty” are merely disputes about “framing” the question; ergo, the con man can be considered “honest” because truth-status is irrelevant to claims about the principle of honesty. If you want to make such claims, that’s okay, but, as Aristotle pointed about the person who rejects the law of non-contradiction, there’s nothing can be said to such a person.

posted by Adam Mossoff at February 1, 2004 05:25 PM #

I am appreciative of Professor Frank Field’s summary (and critical remarks) of my position. For those who are interested:

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/index.php?p=1276&more=1&c=1

posted by Adam Mossoff at February 1, 2004 07:56 PM #

I’ve made my argument elsewhere, perhaps most notably in my description of Jefferson’s opinion, so for now I’ll stick to discussing your paper.

Saying that your paper had “aspersions and insults” is not an ad hominem attack, it’s a criticism. And saying there is no right way to think about things is not self-exclusion — valid conclusions may be reached even through the most inaccurate of models (Maxwell believed in invisible idler wheels, but that does not make his equations incorrect). It’s funny that you’re so tight about logic while so loose with the facts.

Frames are not principles. But perhaps even your principles should be evaluated in light of their application. As I’ve previously described, a copyright based on moral rights leads to a bizarre dystopia.

posted by Aaron Swartz at February 1, 2004 08:20 PM #

Mr. Swartz allegedly spoofs my article by highlighting that I have only a single quote of a House member in 1831, and yet somehow a discourse on Jefferson, a single Founder, is sufficient? The fallacy of self-exclusion strikes again! I would suggest that Mr. Swartz look up the fallacy of self-exclusion in a logic text; otherwise, I can forgive him only because he knows not what he says.

I could go on, but I’m done here. I’m not going to wait for the third installment: the return of the fallacious attack. While this has proven for me to be interesting return to my graduate studies in philosophy, it is tiring. I have found substantive comments and criticisms elsewhere to be more constructive to my work.

posted by Adam Mossoff at February 1, 2004 08:42 PM #

Adam,

I’m sure you are aware of the irony but you just dismissed Aaron’s arguments based on a single (though you claimed three earlier) deficiency (citing “only one Founder”) which was also a deficiency in your original paper.

It seems you are overly preoccupied with criticizing Aaron’s debate techniques over talking about the substance of the debate.

His assertion still stands: You failed to present a convincing argument to support your position. Your only counter was that you had specifically disclaimed the need to go into that in the paper. You then added that Aaron’s statement was also not supported but was only a “conclusional assertion”. Well, again, I hope you see the irony in that statement.

1: your paper was a “conclusional assertion”

2: Aaron’s pointing that out was a “conclusional assertion”

3: your pointing Aaron’s statment out as such was also a “conclusional assertion”

So what, exactly, is /your/ point?

(Aside: Please use standards-compliant software to post. Your messages are riddled with nonstandard characters instead of apostrophes and quotation marks.)

posted by Jeff Watson at February 3, 2004 11:20 AM #