Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 25th, 2011 @ 6:25am
Our tour of the internet pauses here, ladies and gentlemen, to observe the curious species known as the anonymous comment troll. This elusive creature subsists entirely on misinformation, crude sexual innuendo and conflict. Sometimes the tool of powerful interests, they are more frequently the online avatars of profoundly miserable humans.
Imagine him, if you will, sitting in the corner of the public library where his furtive consumption of pornography is least visible to the librarian at the reference desk. Consider the librarian, pretending with all her might not to notice; she understands that this individual is so persistently terrified and self-defeating that the removal of this tenuous link to the outside world might cripple him permanently. Is there hope for the anonymous comment troll? Not if he has anything to say about it.
We will now move on to our next stop, but I encourage you all to note the behavior of anonymous comment trolls where you see them in the wild. They are a persistent part of the online ecosystem, and gather in large numbers around areas of new innovation. They are like the commotion of splashes on the surface of the ocean during a feeding frenzy, showing the gulls where there are scraps to be had...
"Many of you have noted that the superinjunction process is insufficiently responsive to citizens of limited means. We are sensitive to this concern. Citizens of limited means maintain our estates and townhouses. They polish our shoes, prepare our meals, and perform the unpleasant tasks associated with raising our offspring.
In order that they might also receive the full benefit of this policy, we are instituting a program under which the Government, at no charge, will provide requesting citizens with a Home Superinjunction Kit. This is to consist of a 20-gallon cylindrical receptacle, a 20lb bag of cement mix, a 20lb bag of sand, and a snorkel. Any citizen who desires the benefits of a superinjunction is encouraged to make use of these kits until such time as we can make the world completely inoffensive to everyone at all times."
Works of art are a supply, a COGS, a tool in the machine of a technology company or a tech solution.
COGS here refers to 'cost of goods sold,' a common acronym used in accounting. It also beautifully and accurately (sublimely, even) describes the way Big Content views artists: they are a cost of goods sold, to be minimized where possible.
Thanks. I think if I was doing it now, I probably wouldn't have posted that first comment asking for a definition. It was a knee-jerk reaction to what looked initially like a deceptive use of language, but which I now see was simply a matter of word choice.
I still think it's better for all artists to release their work under Creative Commons licenses, because that way their work is allowed to become part of a (probably eternal, based on what I've seen of the internet) global culture. But I think that's a choice that people get to make about their work: choosing whether they want the archiving, publicity and relevance-maintenance services that ecosystem provides in return for trusting their fans to show love. It looks like AltaVoz is trying to support artists but doesn't think that tradeoff has a real chance of success. I disagree with that outlook, but I wish you luck supporting artists.
To clarify: an artist like Brad Sucks gives the gift of music in a way that is respectful to fans and generates profit. If you're using 'gift' to mean 'outmoded copyright-based business model writ small' then I'm not sure I'm interested in supporting that.
Well, that explains the trillion-dollar losses the RIAA has been suffering. They're not outright lies--the RIAA accounting department has just been counting sales lost in the alternate universes used by pirates to kill band members. It's all there in black and white, and even the MPAA has officially stated that alternate universes usually involve pirates.
Exactly. What makes a customer who's torrented a perfect copy of your product WANT to pay for another one? The connection the customer feels to you as an artist/artisan.
It is, as always, a matter of respect: the willingness to share ideas demonstrates respect for your audience. It is then a simple economic question: are there enough people willing to support a respectful ecosystem to keep it afloat? The truth is that there are enough, as examples here show repeatedly, but the maximalists are insufficiently respectful to believe it.
As someone pointed out on an earlier post, we're good at recognizing people of the copyright-maximalist type in our daily lives. They're the people who take and don't give, and because they operate that way, their decisions are based on their fear that everyone else does, too. That attitude should be regarded as a lamentable social disability, not allowed to control policy.
Yes, definitely. What I intended but forgot to say at the end of my previous comment was that at the moment I write this, the person in the hardest situation is a guy at Philadephia police HQ who's been handed this indefensible, horribly spiraling PR disaster by a poorly-trained beat cop and his disgusting posse. I'd put dollars to Sergeant Dougherty's donuts that it's that guy, the guy sitting in HQ and facing a massive preemptive lobby by the local police union, who would most like Dougherty's badge and gun inserted somewhere biologically infeasible
I think it's worth pointing out that there are some humans who are now in a really hard spot. I don't especially sympathize with them, but it's a classic situation that occurs around a lot of the issues Techdirt covers:
1) Someone primed to expect a threat sees what he mistakenly thinks is a threat and overreacts.
2) The accused attempts to assert his rights.
3) The accuser begins to realize he's made a mistake. At this point he has a choice, and his response will tell us whether he's an essentially good person under a lot of understandable stress or the kind of miserable, insecure jerk who understands that his (authority/paycheck/reputation) is entirely undeserved based on the (lack of) value he delivers to society and is afraid that someone will notice and take it away.
Exactly. And we see how well privatization has worked for national security. It's become extremely responsive to oversight and regulation. Remember when Blackwater guys shot all those Iraqi civilians because they were pissed off about being stuck in traffic? Well, Congress started an investigation and bam! Blackwater changed its name to Xe overnight! What government agency would give you a response that fast?
That's something I've thought about, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Part of me suspects that the opposition still honestly thinks they're up against a bunch of college kids who'll come back to the reservation if they build a big enough fence around it. (I know that doesn't make logical sense, and thus I think it's an accurate model of what's going on).
But my larger uncertainty is that, if they realized that what they're actually up against is a growing group of increasingly capable technologists bent on restoring some fairness to the global system of distribution, would they be putting the proverbial boots on the ground with a little more urgency?
I think what this demonstrates is really that laws are being made by a bunch of technophobic dinosaurs who can't even understand that they're undermining the rights of generations to come.
I'm sure that if they understood they would've insisted on bigger bribes.
I've recently come to actually agree with you regarding the free lunch being over; I don't think it's as safe to download copyrighted works from infringing sources as it once was.
The problem that neither you nor anyone else on your side of this debate seems to understand is that production and distribution are no longer secret magic that only record labels have. My friends in the free culture movement have been working their asses off for the past decade to help me understand that there is no difference in quality between the products that media companies are wrapping in ever-more-draconian legal ice and the products that artists (http://www.jamendo.com/en/) and engineers (http://www.thingiverse.com/) are creating in their spare time and giving away for free. Media companies will probably be able to sue for infringement as long as people are dumb enough to regard them as the only source of cultural artifacts, but those lawsuits are powerful arguments for the alternatives to those companies' products. It's Econ 101; when the cost of one kind of goods increases, people will move to substitutes. Proprietary culture is just too expensive in terms of acquisition and potential liability cost.
You can say what you like about this NDA; the fact is that when actually requested to release information about itself, wikileaks has a history of complying:
Not to mention that it seems like every complaint someone mentions is easily solved. If you want privacy, you don't have to offer your information. If you don't like their ads, block them. If you don't want to be tracked, use proxies or TOR.
That's the part I struggle with in forming an opinion. I agree, essentially, that they're the least evil, and I believe that no one at Google WANTS to be evil or intends to do evil.
I just think some things, by their nature, are too dangerous to have lying around. For me, the collection of data Google maintains is one of those things. There's just no way to know what abuses it can or can't enable, and it's impossible to oversee the use of that collection of data in any meaningful way.
On the post: UK Injunction Process Revised To Better Fit The Realities Of Internet Communication
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 25th, 2011 @ 6:25am
Imagine him, if you will, sitting in the corner of the public library where his furtive consumption of pornography is least visible to the librarian at the reference desk. Consider the librarian, pretending with all her might not to notice; she understands that this individual is so persistently terrified and self-defeating that the removal of this tenuous link to the outside world might cripple him permanently. Is there hope for the anonymous comment troll? Not if he has anything to say about it.
We will now move on to our next stop, but I encourage you all to note the behavior of anonymous comment trolls where you see them in the wild. They are a persistent part of the online ecosystem, and gather in large numbers around areas of new innovation. They are like the commotion of splashes on the surface of the ocean during a feeding frenzy, showing the gulls where there are scraps to be had...
On the post: UK Injunction Process Revised To Better Fit The Realities Of Internet Communication
Don't say they never think of the little guy
In order that they might also receive the full benefit of this policy, we are instituting a program under which the Government, at no charge, will provide requesting citizens with a Home Superinjunction Kit. This is to consist of a 20-gallon cylindrical receptacle, a 20lb bag of cement mix, a 20lb bag of sand, and a snorkel. Any citizen who desires the benefits of a superinjunction is encouraged to make use of these kits until such time as we can make the world completely inoffensive to everyone at all times."
On the post: Disney's Anthony Accardo: The Tech Community Owes Content Creators A Living
Aww, you didn't quote the best part!
On the post: Universal Music: We Need PROTECT IP Because Musicians Are Dying!
Re: Re: Re: Buy Indie Support Locals
I still think it's better for all artists to release their work under Creative Commons licenses, because that way their work is allowed to become part of a (probably eternal, based on what I've seen of the internet) global culture. But I think that's a choice that people get to make about their work: choosing whether they want the archiving, publicity and relevance-maintenance services that ecosystem provides in return for trusting their fans to show love. It looks like AltaVoz is trying to support artists but doesn't think that tradeoff has a real chance of success. I disagree with that outlook, but I wish you luck supporting artists.
On the post: Universal Music: We Need PROTECT IP Because Musicians Are Dying!
Re: Re: Buy Indie Support Locals
On the post: Universal Music: We Need PROTECT IP Because Musicians Are Dying!
Re: Buy Indie Support Locals
On the post: Universal Music: We Need PROTECT IP Because Musicians Are Dying!
Re: This is true!
On the post: Does It Make Sense To Autograph Ebooks?
Re: Re:
On the post: Does It Make Sense To Autograph Ebooks?
Re:
It is, as always, a matter of respect: the willingness to share ideas demonstrates respect for your audience. It is then a simple economic question: are there enough people willing to support a respectful ecosystem to keep it afloat? The truth is that there are enough, as examples here show repeatedly, but the maximalists are insufficiently respectful to believe it.
As someone pointed out on an earlier post, we're good at recognizing people of the copyright-maximalist type in our daily lives. They're the people who take and don't give, and because they operate that way, their decisions are based on their fear that everyone else does, too. That attitude should be regarded as a lamentable social disability, not allowed to control policy.
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Kids these days...
On the post: Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them
Re: Re:
On the post: Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them
1) Someone primed to expect a threat sees what he mistakenly thinks is a threat and overreacts.
2) The accused attempts to assert his rights.
3) The accuser begins to realize he's made a mistake. At this point he has a choice, and his response will tell us whether he's an essentially good person under a lot of understandable stress or the kind of miserable, insecure jerk who understands that his (authority/paycheck/reputation) is entirely undeserved based on the (lack of) value he delivers to society and is afraid that someone will notice and take it away.
On the post: RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches
Re: Re: We're not doing away with free speech
On the post: RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches
We're not doing away with free speech
On the post: Kevin Spacey Threatens Musician For Offering Album Called 'Kevinspacey'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re: Re:
But my larger uncertainty is that, if they realized that what they're actually up against is a growing group of increasingly capable technologists bent on restoring some fairness to the global system of distribution, would they be putting the proverbial boots on the ground with a little more urgency?
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
I'm sure that if they understood they would've insisted on bigger bribes.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re:
The problem that neither you nor anyone else on your side of this debate seems to understand is that production and distribution are no longer secret magic that only record labels have. My friends in the free culture movement have been working their asses off for the past decade to help me understand that there is no difference in quality between the products that media companies are wrapping in ever-more-draconian legal ice and the products that artists (http://www.jamendo.com/en/) and engineers (http://www.thingiverse.com/) are creating in their spare time and giving away for free. Media companies will probably be able to sue for infringement as long as people are dumb enough to regard them as the only source of cultural artifacts, but those lawsuits are powerful arguments for the alternatives to those companies' products. It's Econ 101; when the cost of one kind of goods increases, people will move to substitutes. Proprietary culture is just too expensive in terms of acquisition and potential liability cost.
On the post: Julian Assange Doesn't Do Irony Well: Threatens His Own Internal Leakers With $20 Million Penalty
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-02/18/wikileaks-forced-to-leak-own-secret-inf o?page=all
On the post: Facebook Caught Hiring PR Firm To Smear And Attack Google
Re:
That's the part I struggle with in forming an opinion. I agree, essentially, that they're the least evil, and I believe that no one at Google WANTS to be evil or intends to do evil.
I just think some things, by their nature, are too dangerous to have lying around. For me, the collection of data Google maintains is one of those things. There's just no way to know what abuses it can or can't enable, and it's impossible to oversee the use of that collection of data in any meaningful way.
Next >>