Life is approaching One
Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990.
It states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]
Godwin observed that people had increasingly begun to compare anyone and anything they mildly disliked with Hitler and/or Fascism.
Godwin has stated that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt.[citation needed] It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided.[citation needed] Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
The Jefferson Debate is an online adage related to intellectual versus tangible property law. It is in a similar vein to Godwin's Law.
On August 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Isaac McPherson, part of which read:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Jefferson's argument was that by definition, intellectual property does not share many of the attributes of tangible property. As there are significant differences between these concepts of property, it is fallacious to use analogies comparing one with the other or use examples interchangeably. To do so would be akin to comparing apples and oranges.
The Jefferson Debate can be summarized thus:
As an online discussion on intellectual property grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving physical property approaches 1. As the concept of intellectual property is so far removed from that of physical property (as stated by Jefferson), it should be obvious that one party to the debate does not have a sufficient grasp of the ideas involved to continue a rational argument.
An example of a poor analogy in this context would be "downloading an .mp3 file from the internet without authorization from the copyright holder is like stealing a CD from a record store".
This is a common logical fallacy that draws an overly broad likeness between these two acts (see fallacies of definition). In downloading the .mp3 without authorization, the downloader is not paying for the item. The shoplifter who steals a CD is also not paying for the item. The downloader however, has not deprived anyone of tangible property and therefore the two situations must be considered separately. Someone using this analogy is either attempting to manipulate the emotions of their audience to invoke sympathy for the artist whose work is being copied, or does not fully understand the differences between physical and intellectual property.
On encountering a person who uses an example such as the one above, the intelligent debater should realize that they are not actually discussing the benefits or pitfalls of particular copyright issues - they are engaging in the Jefferson Debate, where the focus must be to first find a common ground for both parties to base their arguments on before a rational discussion can occur. This common ground should take note of Jefferson's observations on the differences between the two types of property and how those properties may be owned.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Debate
It states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]
Godwin observed that people had increasingly begun to compare anyone and anything they mildly disliked with Hitler and/or Fascism.
Godwin has stated that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt.[citation needed] It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided.[citation needed] Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
The Jefferson Debate is an online adage related to intellectual versus tangible property law. It is in a similar vein to Godwin's Law.
On August 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Isaac McPherson, part of which read:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Jefferson's argument was that by definition, intellectual property does not share many of the attributes of tangible property. As there are significant differences between these concepts of property, it is fallacious to use analogies comparing one with the other or use examples interchangeably. To do so would be akin to comparing apples and oranges.
The Jefferson Debate can be summarized thus:
As an online discussion on intellectual property grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving physical property approaches 1. As the concept of intellectual property is so far removed from that of physical property (as stated by Jefferson), it should be obvious that one party to the debate does not have a sufficient grasp of the ideas involved to continue a rational argument.
An example of a poor analogy in this context would be "downloading an .mp3 file from the internet without authorization from the copyright holder is like stealing a CD from a record store".
This is a common logical fallacy that draws an overly broad likeness between these two acts (see fallacies of definition). In downloading the .mp3 without authorization, the downloader is not paying for the item. The shoplifter who steals a CD is also not paying for the item. The downloader however, has not deprived anyone of tangible property and therefore the two situations must be considered separately. Someone using this analogy is either attempting to manipulate the emotions of their audience to invoke sympathy for the artist whose work is being copied, or does not fully understand the differences between physical and intellectual property.
On encountering a person who uses an example such as the one above, the intelligent debater should realize that they are not actually discussing the benefits or pitfalls of particular copyright issues - they are engaging in the Jefferson Debate, where the focus must be to first find a common ground for both parties to base their arguments on before a rational discussion can occur. This common ground should take note of Jefferson's observations on the differences between the two types of property and how those properties may be owned.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Debate
posted by Tristan Tzara at 8:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home