Jim Harper replies to "How to regulate the Net" scheme [econ]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Previous Politech message:
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/04/13/how-to-regulate/


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] How to regulate the Net? Target 
intermediaries... [econ]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:03:36 -0400
From: Jim Harper <jharper () cato org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
CC: <seth () belzley com>

An article with this general theme, but focused specifically on Internet 
pathologies, was published in Regulation magazine's Winter 2005 issue. 
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n4/v27n4-7.pdf  My response 
will be published in the next issue of Regulation.

Two main flaws underlie arguments for intermediary liability:

First, they are not grounded in a theory of justice.  It is simply 
*wrong* to hold people accountable for acts that they did not plan, 
commit, or participate in.  This rule has served us well for hundreds of 
years and its recent erosion in limited instances, based on efficiency 
arguments or any others, is regrettable, exceptional, and generally 
wrong.  Efficiency does not trump justice.

Second, they fail to account for the fact that the Internet is an 
agreement on a protocol, or language, used by computers.  The Internet 
is not a thing or a "series of computers connected through a complex 
system of cables."  Even if you could grab all those computers and all 
those cables, the Internet would already be gone.  As with any other 
language, government regulation of the Internet is neither "inevitable" 
nor "realist."

Jim



Jim Harper
Director of Information Policy Studies
The Cato Institute
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)