Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?

from the so-odd dept

Thu, Aug 12th 2010 8:49am — Mike Masnick

A few weeks back, we noted how strange it was that ASCAP boss Paul Williams directly refused to debate Larry Lessig, after Williams falsely described Creative Commons and other groups as being anti-copyright, and referred to attempts to discuss this as an attempt to "silence" him. Over in Europe there's a similar situation, as the head of the Austrian film and music industry trade association has dropped out of a planned panel discussion after learning that former spokesperson of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde, would be on the panel as well.

"On Friday, I was informed of the requested list of panelists and only then I learned that Peter Sunde, a convicted co-founder of the BitTorrent download portal The Pirate Bay, will participate in this discussion. For this reason, I would like to hereby withdraw my participation."

Not much of a "debate" is it, when you refuse to sit at the same table as those who disagree with you. None of this makes much sense to me. If these folks have the evidence to support their position, why not take part in these debates and support their position in a way that wins over those watching? Intentionally avoiding such discussions seems like a blatant admission that they know their arguments don't stand up to much scrutiny.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, debates, entertainment industry, peter sunde

79 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 8:27am

Wow...
Somewhere in Hell, Richard Nixon just facepalmed himself....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:05am

Simple
Anything that has the potential to cause internal doubt must be avoided. Its a symptom of denial. The content distribution industries are failing and they will do anything to avoid being confronted with the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:12am

Rhetoric vs. Knowledge
They want soapboxes that they can use to spread rhetoric while at the same time denying their opponents those same avenues.

When an actual expert comes along with facts and information they want to silence them even if it means denying that opportunity for themselves. After all, they represent big media companies - they can always make more soapboxes, whereas their opponents suffer mostly from obscurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:14am

Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
I don't know. What do you think, Mike?

Hey DH, is this your sister on German TV? :-P
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=YR28oWPJ8vA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
  "Hey DH, is this your sister on German TV? :-P"
  
  You found her! Gasp! So that's where my Star Wars Legos went....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:29am

"If these folks have the evidence to support their position, why not take part in these debates and support their position in a way that wins over those watching?"

I think you answered your own question, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike C. (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:39am

We all know the answer...
In a nutshell, you cannot be proven wrong if you never debate the facts.

Since they've never been proven wrong, they can then go on to say such fun statements like:

- It is in undisputed fact that file sharing is causing our losses.

Since they've never actually debated the assertion, they believe the information to be true and they've explicitly refrained from viewing studies to the contrary, they can say "we didn't lie".

Granted, those of us with a smattering of common sense see this for the lawyer-speak that it is and promptly ignore it... :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: We all know the answer...
  " they've explicitly refrained from viewing studies to the contrary"
  
  They avoid anything that can prove them wrong. Its one of the great things about situations like this, they deny anything is wrong, following the party line blindly, and eventually crash and burn. Its a good thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ac, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:24am
  
  Re: We all know the answer...
  This reminds me of that news story about the guy whose dog chewed off his toe. He was in denial about possibly having diabetes, and refused to get tested. Turns out he had it and got a deep infection in his toe, the was then supposedly chewed off by his dog. The sudden loss of a toe forced the guy to go to the hospital where he finally got diagnosed.
  
  The MAFIAA is in denial about their failing business model (diabetes). At some point one of the MAFIAAs "toes" is going to get infected. I wonder if the MAFIAAs dog will eat their toe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re: We all know the answer...
    I think they are past the toe at this point. The chewing is happening somewhere around the ankle or shin.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew, 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:53am

It also could be the same misguided principle behind preconditions to negotiation. "We will not debate until all of the things were were going to discuss in public have been settled in private."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:56am

why?
Because you refuse to accept that not every artist wants to give all the work away and make money on selling t-shirts. This blog and many of the nuts from the pirate party refuse to acknowledge that there's any merit what-so-ever to the industry's perspective. You've got your fingers in your ears and you keep repeating, "Cory Doctorow made some money from the EFF by giving away his books." And you keep repeating it. So it's not a debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nonanonymous, 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:03am
  
  Re: why?
  Funny satire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re: why?
    He wasn't kidding. That's how all of you act. Just because Corey Doctorow, NIN, Radiohead, and a small handful of others think it's awesome to sell t-shirts to make living doesn't make it a good idea. Not everyone wants to be like Wal-Mart.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: why?
      Be careful, all that straw might catch fire.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        That was an incredibly helpful comment that caused me to change my mind.
        
        Creative Commons Good
        Four Legs Bad
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jjmsan (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        If you want an incredibly helpful comment please post something other than name calling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        What name did I call you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jjmsan (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Fred
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BigKeithO (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: why?
      And how do "all of you" act? "It can't be true, it can't be true!! We won't debate it because we don't believe it can be true!"
      
      Just because people don't want something to happen doesn't mean you can stop it from happening. You don't like file sharing? Get off of this blog and get back to stopping it. Let me know how that turns out for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Your words have touched my heart. Thank you so much for showing me the true way. Did I say those things in my post? No. You're building up the same straw man that "all of you" build.
        
        Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean it will happen. I want free pizza and hookers on Tuesdays, but there will never be a law enacted that gives me that right. You don't like comments from people on this blog that don't agree with yours? Come here and take my computer away. Let me know how that turns out for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid, 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        "Your words have touched my heart. Thank you so much for showing me the true way."
        
        Your types always fall back on sarcasm at times like this. I'm guessing genuine wit is beyond you.
        
        "Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean it will happen."
        
        This isn't a matter of "want" or "do not want." This is a matter of "is" and "will be."
        
        Since you industry shills can't tell the difference between between all the people who oppose you, let me help you out with this one: Most of the people who post on here are not really into file sharing, but simply recognize the reality of it. About a billion people worldwide engage in it. And you expect any logical person to the almighty entertainment industry can go against the will of the world?
        
        "You don't like comments from people on this blog that don't agree with yours? Come here and take my computer away."
        
        Or we could just keep responding to you, verbally raping you while you get crazier and more desperate with each passing day.
        
        You're like a drowning man, clutching at everything he can with increasing desperation as he goes under. Glug, glug. Bye now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid, 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:14pm
        
        Correction....
        "And you expect any logical person to the almighty entertainment industry can go against the will of the world?"
        
        That should say "...any logical person to BELIEVE the almighty entertainment..."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        "You're like a drowning man, clutching at everything he can with increasing desperation as he goes under. Glug, glug. Bye now."
        
        Nah. I'm a troll and you're stupid for replying. Thanks for wasting your time. I just do this to get through boring workdays.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        "you're stupid for replying"
        
        No dumber than the person who wastes his time trolling to start with. Sorry, but you don't get to look down your nose at anyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Try and stop me buddy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Why? Somehow we just don't seem to care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Why not? I'm sure his nose is much longer and uglier than most of ours, and since most trolls are hunched over most of the time, he's probably always looking down his nose at what's left of his toes (the ones that the dog didn't chew off)....
        
        man it's a slow one
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        What you want free money and to not have to work for it dude it will never happen.
        
        You want to people to pay you for streaming something inside their houses?
        
        You want people to pay you for making backups of what they bought with their own money?
        
        You want to charge people for singing in public?
        
        You want people to get a permit to play radio on the park?
        
        Thanks but no thanks, you know when I'm going to respect those type of laws?
        
        NEVER!
        SEND ME TO SING-SING.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        mattarse (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Come to Prague - I'm sure I can find a place that will throw in a free pizza if you buy the hooker ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Comboman (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: why?
      Nobody said EVERYONE should do that, but the ones that want to should have that option. This is about ASCAP vs Creative Commons, not MPAA vs file-sharing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        No, but I sure hear a lot of "That's going to be the only way to make money soon". Which means everyone will have to do it that way.
        
        You people should just grow up and get over it. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Ad hominem *and* straw men. Cool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        For one of the group of people who obviously wants the debate to happen, you sure can't say anything of substance yourself. I wonder if you're a good sample of that group?
        
        If we're going to just post meaningless one-liners instead of actually debating, I can do that too. For example:
        
        Tell your mom I said thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        It's hard to reply with something of substance to an obvious troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        If I'm such an obvious troll why do people reply at all? Why don't they just let it lie? Because they think they can shout loud enough to keep me from saying it.
        
        If I am a troll, they lost and so did you. If I'm not and all I get is retarded one liners to answer me, then they still lose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AC Trollin Trollin Trollin, Rawhide!, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Yes, people respond to your trollish behavior because they want to "shout" louder than you thus obscuring what everyone hears. It sounds like your a little mentally unbalanced considering a reply post makes no sound thus cannot obscure the sound of the post you made.
        
        Who lost? You lost your mind a loooong time ago. Just so this doesn't turn into another one of your hated "one-liners" I will point out no-one here has advocated selling T-shirts as the sole viable business model for the future.
        
        While your point about only a few mainstream artists embracing new models of business may be true it isn't for independent artists who have to come up with new models in order to get their art noticed.
        
        We would all appreciate you trying to add to the conversation. Stuffing the strawman and repeating the same old tired fallacies does nothing to further the discussion and instead makes you look rather stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Yes, just like attacking me and calling me unbalanced is really getting things done. At this point you're just attacking with a purely emotional response rather than pointing out the actual logical fallacies. Troll 1, lemming 0.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 3:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        What is the point in bothering when its a troll?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Because they think they can shout loud enough to keep me from saying it.
        
        You didn't say anything, so they are just going with that precedent that you set :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:18am
        
        pathetic
        Right, so what is it that you won, actually?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 5:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        No, but I sure hear a lot of "That's going to be the only way to make money soon". Which means everyone will have to do it that way.
        
        Economically speaking, the issue comes down to two competitors -- the one who gives away his music for free and uses the increased exposure to sell other things, and the one who hangs on to legacy models and tries to keep people from listening to his music without paying. there are shades on both sides, but this is the core of it. The first artist will dominate the market because he'll be accessible, because his music will reach a wider audience. The second artist might make some money, but his model generally relies on people paying for something sight-unseen, or paying for the same thing several times. The second artist restricts his greatest asset, and will eventually become a non-player as too few people know of or care about him.
        
        Yeah, it might be "the only way to make money soon," but complaining that "everyone will have to do it that way" is kind of silly. At best it's like complaining that you can't sell $75 pizzas and at worst it's like complaining that you need a plane to fly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nonanonymous, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: why?
      Satire is not "kidding", silly rabbit! We do appreciate the double teaming on this issue, the two of you are doing an awesome job ridiculing industry's stance with your satirical outtakes. Please do more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        So you're saying we should eat babies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        No. We're saying you should be able to make copies of babies and eat those copies. What are you, stupid?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: why?
      I liked your catchphrase better when it was "looooooooooooooooooots of tshirts".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: why?
      Is this TAM's new persona? If so, I eagerly look forward to the avalanche of sophistry. Just let me make some popcorn first...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        Nope, check with Mike. I'm just a bored troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
        You spelled stupid wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 8:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: why?
      Just a minor point but isn't Wal-Mart the planet's largest retailer? Gobs of money and power and all that good stuff some Anonymous Cowards wish they had?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anononononononymouse Cowherder, 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:50am
  
  Re: why?
  brilliant comment, absolutely love it, you just ignored that our side WANT to debate the issue to offer facts and figures to support our arguments/views/opinions.
  For example, Peter Sunde who will stand up and offer "the other sides" point of view, no doubt with supporting information. whereas this person has dropped out because he (more than likely) knows he wont stand up to the information contesting his standpoint.
  
  its irrelevant what WE think, we have our opinions. just like its irrelevant what YOU think because your just a shill.
  However, WE are all willing to stand up and back up our side of the argument with opinions, facts, figures, research, industry statistics etc etc. it is in fact your money grabbing industry knob-head overlords who are refusing to accept the truth! and by dropping out of an obviously 2-SIDED debate, he has just displayed the definitive art of putting fingers in ears and denying others the chance to DEBATE (operative word here!).
  
  maybe you missed most of the articles on here anyway. as Mike FREQUENTLY points out, no-one here (especially Mike) suggests artists should give work(s) away, condones piracy/illegal file-sharing or make money "on selling t-shirts". just to be a bit more intelligent in the approach to business and explore the multitude of avenues for gaining revenue and exposure without screwing over YOUR FANS for a quick buck!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eugene (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: why?
  So, if that's actually the case Bob - if the people at these debates really just have their fingers in their ears, living in a fantasy world - then why avoid the debate? Why give them a opportunity to speak unopposed?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 3:07pm
  
  Re: why?
  If this post is any indication, it's because they believe their straw men are real.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colonel Panik, 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:00am

Debate
Just state your case, true or not.
Wash, rinse, repeat.

If that does not work, just state your case LOUDER
and more often.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FormerAC (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 10:30am

To sit at the table and debate would, in the eyes of the entertainment industry, just serve to point out that there is a legitimate debate on the subject. In their eyes, anyone who disagrees with them is a criminal. No debate needed, just lock them up please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  You were correct up until the words "In their eyes". There is no legitimate debate, which is why they are refusing. I applaud them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jjmsan (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    The sound of one hand clapping.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eugene (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Typically, a phrase like "no legitimate debate" is used in cases where there is, in fact, legitimate debate, but the issue is so contentious that it prompts those from one side or the other to isolate themselves from attack by avoiding confrontation entirely, claiming that said confrontation doesn't exist at all.
    
    It's akin to the Semmelweis reflex, where alternative or oppositional positions are rejected instantly, without thought for whether such notions have any merit. Therefore, without sufficient precedent to justify that knee-jerk dismissal, you are engaging in a fairly common cognitive bias.
    
    And I think it's safe to say that when it comes to the questions posed by copyright across the world, there is definitely insufficient precedent. :p
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Typically if someone has something important sounding without posting sources or real studies they are full of shit. Do you have statistics on this, or is it just something that you heard and looked up on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a great tool, but just because you heard a word and looked it up there doesn't make you correct.
      
      The truth of the matter is that you're a bunch of gadflies. You irritate, you loudly shout at anyone who disagrees with you (because you hate 'the man'), and you are mostly uninformed rubes with no statistical proof of what you're talking about.
      
      I think it's even safer to say that copyright was around before you and has become what it is because of planning and carefully considering risk. I also think it's pretty safe to say that most of the people here on this blog only look at one side of the issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The safest thing to say at this point is your a complete idiot!
        
        There are plenty of sources and studies posted on this blog if you really care to read them (hint: you don't).
        
        The real truth of the matter is your a really bitter troll who has a major hard-on for Techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Eugene (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well if this is how you guys debate, then honestly it's probably a good thing that you avoid it. I'd hate to see you make a complete fool of yourself in a real life public forum.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Show me your studies. Seriously. I'm open minded and would love to see them. Back up that last post of yours. Prove me wrong instead of just throwing around words.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Show me your studies.
        
        So you come on someone's blog, do not read and then want the entire content of the blog spoon fed to you. Cute. This blog has a search function, feel free to use it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you come and post a reply to my comment, do not understand that I want him to show me his studies on the Semmelweis reflex and everything he uses the word 'typically' over, and you want me to search? Ok, I searched. That is the only location I've seen that particular phenomenon on this blog. Please point me to the studies that say "Typically, a phrase like "no legitimate debate" is used in cases where there is, in fact, legitimate debate, but the issue is so contentious that it prompts those from one side or the other to isolate themselves from attack by avoiding confrontation entirely, claiming that said confrontation doesn't exist at all."
        
        I've seen studies about many things on this blog. None that show that phenomenon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Killer_Tofu (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At this point here I would just like to thank Mike for adding the little random symbols next to ACs (or other avatar-less names). It makes following an individual's thoughts better. I do find it rather funny though that the main AC troll man got a pink flower (just going under the assumption that its a male, and how the majority of males don't seem to like pink).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought about using a VPN to my house or one of the many anonymous proxies so that I could sock puppet several ACs at once. I may do that to 'prime the pump' so to speak and get a bunch of people riled up next time. Won't that be fun?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:22am
        
        too much spare time
        Probably as dull as answering your current bull. God, I'm bored.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 16 Aug 2010 @ 7:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow you go through a lot of trouble to make sure people can't point out all the contradictions in your own arguments.
        It all started when you stopped logging into an account ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colonel Panik, 12 Aug 2010 @ 12:46pm

The comments
DON'T PANIK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sockpuppet Trollsalot, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:14pm

For those of you who really wanted to know, I am a troll. I create a completely retarded persona, take the opposite opinion of those around me, then I start attacking. I do this for fun.

The real truth of the matter? I think the industry just joined the 'debate' because they thought it would make a good press release with no work. I'm surprised they don't hire professional straw men.

Protip for those that replied in an emotional context or a one liner that was off of the original post's topic: Stop. You fed me, I enjoyed the hell out of it (work was REALLY slow today), and you all look like just as much of a jackass as I did with your comments. For those that tried to keep on topic and had well reasoned responses (Eugene, I'm looking at you): Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re:
  You're not a troll, so stop calling yourself one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 3:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure I am. I love being a troll. It helps pass the time. When my little icon changes on the next story I start trolling on I'll do it again. And people will respond again. It's the circle of life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 4:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Circle of Troll
      Circle of life? More like the circle of your mental deficiencies. Circling right down the toilet where you belong.
      
      Go pass the time somewhere else. We don't care for your inability to form cohesive thoughts or your try-to-be devil's advocate performances (hint: you suck at it).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 8:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Circle of Troll
        Apparently you're not familiar with what a troll does. They don't try to form any sort of real argument. They say things that get people riled up. He succeeded. Let it go or he'll just come back and keep on doing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 5:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No. You're not a troll. You're just a moron. Big difference.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2010 @ 6:24pm

Truth
They want soapboxes that they can use to spread rhetoric while at the same time denying their opponents those same avenues.

When an actual expert comes along with facts and information they want to silence them even if it means denying that opportunity for themselves. After all, they represent big media companies - they can always make more soapboxes, whereas their opponents suffer mostly from obscurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Truth, 12 Aug 2010 @ 7:04pm

The Real Truth
I must comment on how misguided some of the comments are. It unfortunate the way this website is portraying copyright law. ASCAP BMI and the other worldwide performance organizations exist to protect songwriters and composers rights. As a working composer and songwriter I depend on performance royalties to make a living and feed my family. I could make a pretty good argument that Americans should not have to pay money for food but that would be ridiculous....wouldn't it. Who cares that Paul Williams doesn't want to debate Larry Lessig. Why would he? I for one am glad that the performance rights organizations exist. Media organizations already make more than enough of the backs of working artists, songwriters & composers. Thank god ASCAP is out there fighting for us.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 9:57pm
  
  Re: The Real Truth
  If ASCAP hadn't called Creative Commons a group who "opposes copyright" and "doesn't want artists to get paid," then the call for a debate would never have happened.
  
  The Real Truth is that CC licenses are copyrights, and they are there for artists to use, or not use, as they see fit. In fact, the people at CC found out about it because some of their license users are also ASCAP members. CC is an organization who is just as much pro-artist as ASCAP is.
  
  Perhaps even more, since PRO's such as ASCAP benefit already-popular artists the most, and up-and-coming artists the least. For example, royalty rates are calculated based on radio play, which (due in no small part to payola) is pretty much the exclusive domain of major label artists.
  
  There's also the fact that excessive, extortion-like practices of getting licenses from tiny businesses (some of which don't even play PRO music) has forced many of those businesses to stop playing music altogether. A situation that, I'm sure you'll agree, does not help any artist one iota.
  
  For one example (of many), see the lawsuit ASCAP brought against Connolly's Pub in Bruce Springsteen's name - which Springsteen didn't approve of, or even know about:
  http://www.spinner.com/2010/02/04/bruce-springsteen-lawsuit-bar/
  
  The Real Truth is that if a debate ever happened, the people at CC (who are more pro-artist than ASCAP) would air out all that dirty laundry in public, and that's something no PRO would ever approve of.
  
  Media organizations already make more than enough of the backs of working artists, songwriters & composers. Thank god ASCAP is out there fighting for us.....
  
  Major labels are the media organizations that make money off the backs of working artists. ASCAP does nothing to challenge them.
  
  They do, however, go after auto shops that allow their employees to play their iPods. That's hardly a situation that I believe qualifies as "make more than enough off the backs of working artists, songwriters & composers."
  
  When ASCAP actually did its job right - correctly distributing radio royalties, collecting from music venues - then very few people would have much of a problem with them.
  
  That includes CC, the EFF, and Public Knowledge, all of which ASCAP called "thieves."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 9:00pm
    
    Re: Re: The Real Truth
    I know nobody is actually looking at this page anymore, but for an explanation of why people (especially ASCAP members) are upset in the first place, read this article:
    
    http://www.artsjournal.com/gap/2010/06/the-right-balance-on-copying.html
    
    Pay special attention to the comments, the majority of which are by ASCAP members who find this stance to be the final straw, and are quitting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]