Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?

from the so-odd dept

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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

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

    Wow...

    Somewhere in Hell, Richard Nixon just facepalmed himself....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Matthew (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike C. (profile), Aug 12th, 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... :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ac, Aug 12th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matthew, Aug 12th, 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."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob, Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      nonanonymous, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 10:03am

      Re: why?

      Funny satire.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 10:24am

          Re: Re: Re: why?

          Be careful, all that straw might catch fire.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          BigKeithO (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              RadialSkid, Aug 12th, 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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                RadialSkid, Aug 12th, 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..."

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  RadialSkid, Aug 12th, 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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 2:54pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?

                    Try and stop me buddy.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              mattarse (profile), Aug 13th, 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 ;)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Comboman (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 11:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?

              Ad hominem *and* straw men. Cool.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Modplan (profile), Aug 12th, 2010 @ 11:49am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?

                  It's hard to reply with something of substance to an obvious troll.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      AC Trollin Trollin Trollin, Rawhide!, Aug 12th, 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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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 :)

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      techflaws.org (profile), Aug 13th, 2010 @ 2:18am

                      pathetic

                      Right, so what is it that you won, actually?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          nonanonymous, Aug 12th, 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 12:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: why?

          I liked your catchphrase better when it was "looooooooooooooooooots of tshirts".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Aug 12th, 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?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anononononononymouse Cowherder, Aug 12th, 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!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Eugene (profile), Aug 12th, 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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Aug 12th, 2010 @ 3:07pm

      Re: why?

      If this post is any indication, it's because they believe their straw men are real.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Colonel Panik, Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    FormerAC (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        jjmsan (profile), Aug 12th, 2010 @ 11:20am

        Re: Re:

        The sound of one hand clapping.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Eugene (profile), Aug 12th, 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

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Eugene (profile), Aug 12th, 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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 12th, 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).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                techflaws.org (profile), Aug 13th, 2010 @ 2:22am

                too much spare time

                Probably as dull as answering your current bull. God, I'm bored.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 16th, 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 ...

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Colonel Panik, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

    The comments

    DON'T PANIK

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sockpuppet Trollsalot, Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 2:42pm

      Re:

      You're not a troll, so stop calling yourself one.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 5:54pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No. You're not a troll. You're just a moron. Big difference.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Real Truth, Aug 12th, 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.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Aug 12th, 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."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This