Comments on: Google’s spin on the fair use debate http://www.26econ.com/googles-spin-on-the-fair-use-debate/ Online economics Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:14:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Bertil Hatt http://www.26econ.com/googles-spin-on-the-fair-use-debate/#comment-106 Bertil Hatt Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:37:37 +0000 http://www.26econ.com/googles-spin-on-the-fair-use-debate/#comment-106 I've allowed myself to comment directly on Google's blog: I am not sure covering all the industries in the report under one "Fair Use" label isn't a framing to support Google's lobbying efforts, but I have to reckon that they all rely on a balance of control over intellectual creation. I do agree with you in general: people tend to over-extend conclusions, and lack the ability to think about what could happen if such or such institution had to disappear; counterfactual scenarios is another issue to me: I disagree with the principle, for the reason it generally shows more what assumptions those who make the scenario are not willing to challenge rather then anything else—but that is probably more a debate on words than an actual disagreement. What I think would happen without the ability to use, quote, refer to someone else's intellectual creation goes far beyond a 16% drop: this is not because "Fair Use" as mis-understood by Google opponents is such a good idea: it's more because the consultancy gave is such a broad definition that the scope of disruption it has is so wide. Finally, I would love to say that I really enjoyed reading your blog, and I will happily continue to do so. I’ve allowed myself to comment directly on Google’s blog: I am not sure covering all the industries in the report under one “Fair Use” label isn’t a framing to support Google’s lobbying efforts, but I have to reckon that they all rely on a balance of control over intellectual creation.
I do agree with you in general: people tend to over-extend conclusions, and lack the ability to think about what could happen if such or such institution had to disappear; counterfactual scenarios is another issue to me: I disagree with the principle, for the reason it generally shows more what assumptions those who make the scenario are not willing to challenge rather then anything else—but that is probably more a debate on words than an actual disagreement.

What I think would happen without the ability to use, quote, refer to someone else’s intellectual creation goes far beyond a 16% drop: this is not because “Fair Use” as mis-understood by Google opponents is such a good idea: it’s more because the consultancy gave is such a broad definition that the scope of disruption it has is so wide.

Finally, I would love to say that I really enjoyed reading your blog, and I will happily continue to do so.

]]> By: john http://www.26econ.com/googles-spin-on-the-fair-use-debate/#comment-103 john Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:03:10 +0000 http://www.26econ.com/googles-spin-on-the-fair-use-debate/#comment-103 Nice post Aaron. Its really a shame that more attention isn't given to counterfactual scenarios. There is no point in talking about a cost (or a benefit) unless it is relative to some other state of the world. But its very often more convenient to ignore those economic truths and just spin the message. Nice post Aaron. Its really a shame that more attention isn’t given to counterfactual scenarios. There is no point in talking about a cost (or a benefit) unless it is relative to some other state of the world. But its very often more convenient to ignore those economic truths and just spin the message.

]]>