One of the great things about online publication - as contrasted with printed law reviews - is that debates can happen in real time. Case in point: the debate about the legality the seizure of the domain names of websites that are used to distribute copyright-protected works, without being licensed to do so. Terry Hart responded to criticisms of such seizures, quite persuasively I thought, in a previously-noted Copyhype post. His post prompted rebuttal at techdirt, to which Hart has posted a sur-rebuttal. The debate is invigorating not just because the topic is important and timely, but also because it's laced with actual legal argument, based on real legal authorities - not simply the slinging of raw opinion and invective. Which isn't to say the debate is appellate-brief like. Not at all. It shows that legal argument doesn't have to by dry-as-dust; it can actually be a pleasure to read.