The Case For Copyright Reform: Techdirt Book Club
from the let's-discuss dept
First off, a reminder that this Friday, at 1pm PT (4pm ET), we’ll be hosting a live Q&A concerning the Techdirt Book Club book for May, Reclaiming Fair Use by Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi. If you want to see the first excerpt, the second excerpt, the third excerpt and the fourth excerpt go check them out. Patricia will be joining us for the Q&A on Friday, so get your questions ready.
And, with that I wanted to introduce the June book, which is The Case for Copyright Reform, by Rick Falkvinge and Christian Engstrom. This time, I don’t have to include an excerpt, because you can download the whole thing for free in a variety of different formats. Of course, you can also buy a physical copy if you’d like to.
And… then you can do whatever you want with it, as the authors have explicitly declared that they retain no copyright in the works, and you are free to do with it what you will. Just to whet your appetite, I’m still going to include a very brief excerpt of just the first few paragraphs, which highlights the key point of the book. Rick and Christian will be joining us for a (I expect, lively) chat at the end of the month as well. Anyway, here’s the excerpt:
Today’s copyright legislation is out of balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned an entire generation of young people into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping technological development. Yet file sharing has continued to grow exponentially. Neither propaganda, fear tactics, nor ever harsher laws have been able to stop the development.
It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing on fundamental human rights. As long as there are ways for citizens to communicate in private, they will be used to share copyrighted materials. The only way to even try to limit file sharing is to remove the right to private communication. In the last decade, this is the direction that copyright enforcement legislation has moved in, under pressure from big business lobbyists who see their monopolies under threat. We need to reverse this trend to safeguard fundamental rights.
At the same time, we want a society where culture flourishes, and where artists and creative people have a chance to make a living as cultural workers. Fortunately, there is no contradiction between file sharing and culture. This is something we know from a decade’s experience of massive file sharing on the Internet.
In the economic statistics, we can see that household spending on culture and entertainment is slowly increasing year by year. If we spend less money on buying CDs, we spend more on something else, such as going to live concerts. This is great news for artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD, but 50% of the revenues from a concert. The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.
It may well be that it will become more difficult to make money within some parts of the cultural sector, but if so, it will become easier in some others – including new ones, that we have not even imagined so far. But as long as the total household spending on culture continues to be on the same level or rising, nobody can claim that artists in general will have anything to lose from a reformed copyright.
Should this also have the side effect of loosening up some of the grip that the big distributors have over cultural life, then so much the better for both artists and consumers.
Filed Under: book club, christian engstrom, copyright reform, fair use, patricia aufderheide, peter jaszi, rick falkvinge
Comments on “The Case For Copyright Reform: Techdirt Book Club”
Oh good, you found a free book for next time. Good thing your pirate buddy Rick is on the same page. I wonder how many more you’ll be able to find that are free. You’d think if your alternative business models were so awesome, everyone’d be using them.
Re: Re:
You’re pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:
Not nearly as pathetic as the fact that Mike can’t just admit how he really feels about piracy. We all know already. No need to deny it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Falkvinge does not defend commercial copyright infringement. The PP’s platform advocates legalization of not for profit sharing.
See the difference?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Actually, I can speak well for myself 🙂
I do not defend breaking any law, but I do defend changing certain laws to become net positive for society.
The copyright monopoly is one such law that needs to be changed. It can basically be divided into two halves – the first half is directly harmful, and the second half is merely useless.
As it is too much of a political bite to change everything at once, I am aiming at reforming the harmful parts into something considerably less harmful.
(In other words, it is important to separate the end vision from the identified steps needed to reach it.)
Cheers,
Rick
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You founded the Pirate Party, but you don’t support piracy? I find that impossible to believe.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Let me guess… you find it hard to believe that there are Christians who don’t support gay-bashing, policemen who don’t believe in police brutality, feminists who don’t support killing men, etc.?
???
“Fortunately, there is no contradiction between file sharing and culture.”
I must admit to being confused and more than a little nauseated by this statement. File-sharing is a very natural, organic expression of culture, like whistling or storytelling or doodling. It’s astonishing to me that any amount of convoluted thinking could twist it into something even potentially at odds with culture.
Culture is what you and I share freely. Artists are the oddest sort of cultural symbiotes, and anyone who merely claims the right to some creation without actually creating it is nothing less than a cultural parasite.
Re:
You seem to be under the impression that this AC has even read the story, let alone has an interest in rational discussion of the issues. This AC is here for one reason: the AC hurts inside and wants to feel better but doesn’t know how. That’s the only possible explanation of why someone would behave the way he does.
AC doesn’t see it that way of course, he pictures himself a comment section hero, waiting with baited breath for each new story so that he can “spread discord” or whatever he thinks he’s doing. Every reply causes his brain to release endorphins, dulling the pain momentarily.
Or he’s just some kid with a lot of time on his hands, in which case I say “Well done sir, excellent trolling!”
Re:
You seem to be under the impression that this AC has even read the story, let alone has an interest in rational discussion of the issues. This AC is here for one reason: the AC hurts inside and wants to feel better but doesn’t know how. That’s the only possible explanation of why someone would behave the way he does.
AC doesn’t see it that way of course, he pictures himself a comment section hero, waiting with baited breath for each new story so that he can “spread discord” or whatever he thinks he’s doing. Every reply causes his brain to release endorphins, dulling the pain momentarily.
So maybe there’s actually a legitimate question as to where the legion of CwF + RtB success stories are? I don’t know but I suspect that you need to have fans first in order to connect with them. Anyway, one tip: If you are going to feign superiority and talk down to people, you ought to know that the phrase is bated breath not “baited breath”. And while we’re on the subject of stupid- what’s with your moniker? Bladder control issue or some sex pervert thing?
Re: Re:
“So maybe there’s actually a legitimate question as to where the legion of CwF + RtB success stories are?”
Anybody with the slightest shred of intellectual honesty would see the numerous stories written here about those very success stories, understand that every project funded through Kickstarter is such a success story (among many others), understand that many business models from open source to free MMORPGs is such a success story, and that every attempt to pretend these don’t exist makes the author look like an ignorant moron.
But, most ACs have no intellectual honesty, do they?
“And while we’re on the subject of stupid- what’s with your moniker?”
Yes, personal insults, mockery and grammar Nazism. These things are sure to get you answers to your “legitimate question”.
Re:
If you’re going to use insults to raise a suggestion of legitimate concern, don’t be surprised if you get insults in return.
Who wants to bet there’s more comments in this back-and forth than on the actual book?
Failing to mention:
“Rickard ?Rick? Falkvinge (Swedish pronunciation: [ˈfalkˌvɪŋɛ]), born Dick Augustsson on 21 January 1972 in Gothenburg, is a Swedish IT entrepreneur known as the founder and first party leader of the Swedish Pirate Party.”
is sort of important here. It would appear not to be a book club selection, as much as another part of your PAC activities.
Context – without it, you miss everything. That was the plan, right Mike?
Re: Re:
“It would appear not to be a book club selection, as much as another part of your PAC activities.”
To a conspiracy-minded fool, perhaps, who sees giants where there are windmills.
To others – not so much. A member of an organisation whose views are often (but not always) aligned with some major themes on this site writes a book. It’s released free of charge, in alignment with said views. After numerous complaints about sky-high prices for the last few books, Mike chooses a free book, to further generate the discussion and debate that is the whole point of the club in the first place. There’s no conspiracy here unless you choose to prove or see one.
At least the authors of this book have principles and stand by them, identifying themselves and releasing the book under the model (I presume) that it promotes or discusses. That’s more than I can say for many of you ACs.
Re: Re: Re:
Paul, is that your best swipe? That we who chose to post anonymously (because Mike allows it) are somehow not being social?
Wow. Talk about really not getting it.
My point is only that when you talk about a book and a book’s author, knowing who they are puts their works in context. Understanding that this isn’t some grand scientific concept to redo copyright, but rather part of a political party’s stand puts it all in a new light. Mike specifically NOT mentioning who the author is pretty much proves that he doesn’t want to have a true discussion.
That you are a stupid enough guy to swallow it whole only goes to show. I think Mike needs his boots licked. Is that part of your job description around here?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“That we who chose to post anonymously (because Mike allows it) are somehow not being social?”
How did you read that into what I wrote? Read again.
“Mike specifically NOT mentioning who the author”
FTA:
“And, with that I wanted to introduce the June book, which is The Case for Copyright Reform, by Rick Falkvinge and Christian Engstrom”
Why do you have to lie about things in the article? It’s right there!
“Is that part of your job description around here?”
Yes, as I thought, you’re stupid enough to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of a grand conspiracy paid to attack you, not coming from a position of common sense, logic or business acumen.
You’re a total idiot, and my evidence is right here. Where’s your evidence for your bullshit assertions?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Why do you have to lie about things in the article? It’s right there!”
Asshat. Did he mention that, oh by the way, this is the guy who founded the pirate party? No.
“Yes, as I thought, you’re stupid enough to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of a grand conspiracy paid to attack you”
No, I just know that you are more than a little bit of a suck up here, probably trying to get a job posting.
The idiocy is yours sir, protecting your “boss” no matter what. You are doing a very good job trying to avoid dealing with the point – that if it was “Pirate Party Boss Writes This Book” is would be more than slightly different from the way Mike has presented things. Once again, Mike plays games with presentation, and you are there to cover for him.
Idiocy indeed!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Your argument is invalidated, Red AC 16, both by your insults and the lack of empirical non-industry evidence. You just can’t stand to be wrong. It boils your blood to even think it. So you just stand there and jump up and down yelling “NO! NO! NO!” as if that’ll make any difference.
You just can’t possibly imagine that the legacy approach is as dead as we continually show it to be. But it is. To quote the Cat, it’s “deader than A-line flares with pockets in the knees!” Understand that your comments will never accomplish anything or convince anyone, ever. They are utterly useless, just as you yourself so often come across as. You’re obsessed with keeping your herd of cattle under lock and key, but what you refuse to see is that your fence only has one side, all the others are gone. Your herd is leaving you for better, greener grass and there is nothing you can do to stop them.
You’re a complete smeghead, but the difference between you and Rimmer is that at least Rimmer was funny and enjoyable to watch. You’re just a sad, lost little toddler that doesn’t want to share his toys for fear of not getting them back. To paraphrase Kryten, you’re “an incompetent media industry shill with a Napoleon complex.” If the Inquisitor ever decides to show up in our time, I’m sure he’ll be paying you a visit.
So quit the trolling and misdirection and vain attempts to hide the fact you have no case, and quit doing what you accuse Paul of. I suspect you’re far more familiar with such behavior, of sucking up to your bosses, than he is.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Asshat. Did he mention that, oh by the way, this is the guy who founded the pirate party? No.”
Nor did he mention the occupations and history of Christian Engstrom, Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi. Do these matter to you, or do you give those a pass because they don’t fit the paranoid fantasy you’ve constructed for yourself?
Nor, as ever, do you identify yourself, but you expect me to take your work on a conspiracy by one person to hide the identify of another, despite the fact that their histories can be discovered in a single Google search.
What’s your history and why should I believe your lunatic rantings?
“No, I just know that you are more than a little bit of a suck up here, probably trying to get a job posting. “
Ah, deeper into your conspiracy bullshit you go. In fact, this is a great insight into your idiot mindset – you’re such a paranoid delusional, you can’t even comprehend somebody stating their own opinions without their being some grand conspiracy behind it.
My God, I state my own opinions in my spare time on a public space for no expectation of any reward other than the discussion I might get from sane people (current AC company excepted of course). I must be a monster.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Nor, as ever, do you identify yourself”
This is the perfect stupid argument from someone who knows they lost. Why does it matter who I am? I didn’t write the book, I am not trying to disguise my political party standing, etc. I am not trying to “save” copyright or “fix” copyright.
Why the fuck does it matter who I am? Is that even marginally relevant?
NOT IN THE FUCKING SLIGHTLEST.
“Ah, deeper into your conspiracy bullshit you go.”
Your the one trying to discredit me rather than address the issues. The only conspiracy here is that you never seem to want to talk about the points, you only want to talk about me.
Stop being an asshat.
Don’t you think it is at least SLIGHTLY relevant that the author is the founder of the Pirate Party? Don’t you think that small piece of information would add to the discussion?
Stop being an asshat, and address the issue.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Why does it matter who I am?”
There are 5 people named in this article, all of whom have instantly verifiable identities, credentials, views, loyalties and all the rest. There is one person accusing another of conspiracy and lying based on the identity of the others.
You present absolutely zero evidence for your claim, other than the fact that a man who co-wrote a book is involved with a massive conspiracy with a website author because he happened to mention him as an author.
It matters that I cannot get any of the information on the critic that I can on the accused. I can check all the credentials of everybody you’re attacking, but who are you? A wronged boss or colleague? Former lover? Jilted lovechild? I don’t know.
If somebody is making ridiculous claims, wouldn’t you at least want to know who they are before you judge their position? I know I do.
“NOT IN THE FUCKING SLIGHTLEST.”
Ignoring your lack of etiquette and spelling skills, yes it does. Mike did not list the credentials of any author named in the article. Nor did he name the profession or loyalties of any other author. Yet, you attack Mike for not naming one single person’s history, despite not listing others’. Your point might be taken at face value if he had named Hilary Rosen’s book, specifically called her out as an RIAA executive, and then compared her book to Falkvinge without naming his credentials. But he didn’t. He simply didn’t pull the bullshit tactic you want, which is to call out the political views of someone you don’t like.
Now, there might still be something to your claims if you had inside knowledge. Perhaps you’re an ex-colleague of Mike’s with inside knowledge. Perhaps a publisher of the book or somebody who can simply tell us why the book is not truthful.
But you choose not to validate this knowledge. Your problem is that every argument is made from a position of authority. You will not identify that position of authority, nor will you deem yourself worthy of simply choosing a unique name. So, i have to assume that you’re somebody who gets his kicks from trolling which is a very low station in my eyes.
“Your the one trying to discredit me rather than address the issues. “
The issue is that an easily identifiable author wrote an article about 4 easily identifiable authors, and you attacked him for not singling out one of the authors because he has a political stance with which you disagree? Am I wrong?
Which issue are you talking about? If you wish to make an accusation, provide proof, that’s all I ask.
“Don’t you think it is at least SLIGHTLY relevant that the author is the founder of the Pirate Party? “
In this article, no.
The book is free, so you can download it and read without profiting the author directly, nor breaking and civil or criminal law. The author you despise is identified as the founder of the Pirate Party on page 2 of the PDF version. He is also easily identifiable by typing his name into Google, or the search engine of your choice if you’re a conspiracy theorist nutbag as I believe you are?
Why is it a problem that Mike didn’t include direct reference of this author rather than all the others mentioned, where he referenced nothing?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
>Your the one trying to discredit me rather than address the issues.
So your argument is, “I’m trying to discredit someone based on who he is; stop trying to discredit me based on who I am”?
High court for you and low courts for everyone else, eh? Where were you when the judge presiding over the Pirate Bay case refused to reveal his own anti-piracy agendas and close association with the prosecution? Don’t you think that was relevant to the discussion?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Asshat. Did he mention that, oh by the way, this is the guy who founded the pirate party? No.”
Well, for anybody actually reading the book, it’s mentioned quite prominently. On the back of the book, even.
Also, for those capable of googling, it becomes rather obvious. 🙂
Besides, I don’t mean to appear too full of myself here, but in a sufficiently large swarm of commenters on a technical blog, there is usually at least one who recognizes my name as the founder of the first Pirate Party. Thus, the swarm being what it is, I can’t imagine Mike saw it as some kind of secret in the least – it wouldn’t be one you could keep for many seconds. 😀
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I read it in the book before I started reading the comments. Didn’t change my opinion either way so I don’t understand why this is a big deal.
Move along people, nothing to see here.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hi Rick, how’s the Bitcoin scam going?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Also, for those capable of googling, it becomes rather obvious. :)”
Capable of Googing and intellectually honst enough to understand what they’re attacking? not our ACs Rick, sorry…
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Paul, stop being an asshat. Clearly I can google it, because I mentioned it. How fucking desperate are you to try to win the point? You lost dude, get over it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
To be honest, even I, one who is erroneously called an “IP Maximist”, recognized the names of the authors and their political bent as “IP Anarchists”.
BTW, I did read their publication and found it to be little more than a 100+ page tome that adds nothing I believe is useful in the debate about copyright. While just my opinion, I believe they could have saved an awful lot of paper by simply limiting the entire text of their publication to to read “We place privacy at a much higher level than copyright enforcement, and if ever the two shall meet the former must always prevail. End of discussion.”
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“End of discussion.”
Yes, your opinion just has to be the be all and end all, right? You couldn’t lower yourself to actually bloody discussing this – you know, the entire point of the book club? No, you just announce your opinion from on high and attack anybody who disagrees without considering their point of view. Pathetic as always.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
In case I was not clear,”End of discussion” was meant to signify my impression of the authors’ underlying views. Privacy trumps all, and there is simply no argument that can cause them to give pause they may be viewing the entire issue through a lens with a narrow FOV.
They state that they are not anti-copyright (and patent), even going so far as to say they are willing to entertain a much, much shorter term (20 years) for copyright. However, they then advocate exceptions that would have the operative effect of reducing that term to virtually zero.
They spend quite some time excoriating law. For example, they declare that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 must mean maximizing the benefit to society at large. This is a interpretation of our constitution that has never been accepted by our judiciary, including even Supreme Court dissenters.
SOPA and PIPA are criticized for the provisions embodied in each, and yet the examples of such provisions they use do not accurately reflect what those provisions actually state. They are attempting to read into the bills things that are simply not there.
They wax poetic about cases such as Tenebaum and Thomas-Rassert, and do so without even accurately stating the underlying facts established at trial because of the evidence that was presented.
The list of inaccuracies supporting their arguments is much too long to discuss in any detail.
Taking all of their arguments together, I belive it is accurate to say they place privacy interests at a level far, far higher than anything associated with copyright. Accordingly, my simple summation of what I understand to be their point is in my view a fair summation.
Importantly, my comment was not influenced by their political affiliation with the Pirate Party. It was influenced solely by what they wrote.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
OK, sorry I misunderstood you. I’m also sorry if you don’t like being lumped in with the idiots who are infesting the thread under the same moniker as yourself – at least you’re intellectually honest enough to get the facts first. Sadly, most around here don’t seem to be as honest.
But, my main point stands. Give everybody else a chance to read the book, and we’ll discuss it. Everything from the bias of the authors to the points being raised and the implications of what’s being said. I can’t argue the content of the book, as I have not yet had chance to read it. Some accusations sound familiar around here (e.g. the SOPA comment – one of the problems with SOPA is that it was so broadly drafted that scary implications could be seen in the implementation, even if such things were not in the spirit or letter of the way it was drafted). But, I’ll hold fire until I know what the words actually say.
Until then, try not to shout your opinion as though it’s the unvarnished, undeniable truth. Perhaps it is, perhaps I will read the book and have a completely different take, and through discussion we may each learn something. That is, after all, the entire point of this book club idea.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
It goes without saying that 10 people can read a book and come away with 10 different, and sometimes irreconcilable, interpretations. Frankly, I have no problem with that at all. We are, of course, all entitled to our own opinions, and what I happened to post reflects mine…which I believe I made clear. If I did not, then please view this as a clarification.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Hey, no problem and please accept my apology if I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Can people reach different conclusions based on the same book? Of course, that’s what the discussion is for. Thanks to the many, many liars and fools you share your lack of a login with, however, I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion. As you may be able to tell, many people with the AC moniker are interested in neither facts nor opinions that don’t match their assumptions.
As ever, I’d suggest creating a name to distinguish yourself from other ACs if you are a regular commenter or reader – I certainly welcome opposing opinions and look forward to returning to your comments when I’ve read the book. Maybe I’ll agree, maybe I’ll be able to put together an informed rebuttal, we will see…
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Been trying to login, but the site does not recognize the name and password I created a few days ago. So, back to AC for simplicity’s sake. BTW, I had been using “Pro Se”.
Another thing that is making things hard here is that as of late the site is not working the same on IE9 as it did before. On every site I visit if I open a page and then hit “back” I go immediately to the previous page. On my Desktop when I select an article to see the comments my history suddenly becomes multiple copies of the same page. I have to select back 3,4 or even 5 times to back to the actual page. Apparently, ads on the page are each registering as a new page; hence, the multiple clicks on back before I return to the article. Of course, now that I am back at the original article all prior site pages are no longer in my history. After a little while going through this frustration, I lose the ability to even return from the comments to the page on which the article appears.
Not sure what has happened, but it is problematic that my login is not accepted and my history disappears into the wild blue yonder.
Pro Se (which means in expressing my views I am representing only myself)
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Been trying to login, but the site does not recognize the name and password I created a few days ago. So, back to AC for simplicity’s sake.
Try the contact us link (or whatever it’s called). Techdirt staff are generally pretty responsive and helpful.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
I’m not sure why you’re posting your technical woes here rather than contacting TD to ask them to get it fixed. I’m sure that if it was a wide ranging problem, more people would be complaining though, so maybe it’s just a local issue. Have you tried clearing cache/cookies, for example, or tried another browsers to see if it reoccurs? I’ve never had a single problem logging in or navigating the site, although I do tend to use other browsers.
Also, you don’t have to log in to have a name to distinguish yourself. The advantages of logging in are that people can easily see your posting history, and others can’t use the same profile (others can use the same name as you if you don’t log in). But, your account problems have nothing to do with whether you choose to distinguish yourself from others.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Problem is that my login is not being recognized.
As for IE9 problem, it is limited to just this site. I did some troubleshooting and determined, after consulting with MS, that it is related to how some ads appear on this site. Apparently, as each ad comes up IE9’s history records it as a new page. This is an issue that has cropped up only within about the last couple of weeks.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
So, well done you’ve discovered a bug. So, did you bother to contact Techdirt via the clearly marked “Help & Feedback” to report the bug via their clearly marked option, or have you just whined here and to 3rd parties? One of these involves a tiny amount of effort and gets a response from people who can fix the problem. The other is just pointless whining.
But, you also still haven’t bothered letting yourself be distinguished from other ACs despite it being pointed out to you above and being as easy as typing something in the “name” box, so I think I know which direction you lean towards…
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Clearly I can google it, because I mentioned it.”
Then why are you whining about Mike not having mentioned it for you? Anybody who actually bothered reading the book would know what you’re demanding, so why are you being such an obnoxious fool?
“You lost dude, get over it.”
I’m asking simple questions, which you avoid time and time again. I don’t think I’ve “lost” anything, and it’s quite telling that you think this is a game.
Start explaining yourself – why are you so obsessed with having the history of one of the authors mentioned, yet you appear not to have considered the other 3 in the article?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Then why are you whining about Mike not having mentioned it for you? “
It isn’t whining, you git. It’s making a clear point: Mike should say “this isn’t a straight book, it’s a listing of the political beliefs of someone running the Pirate Party.”.
CONTEXT. It has amazing implications on the value of information. You don’t get it, because you will accept whatever Mike spoons at you without question. For the rest of us, getting the context of the information is important to understanding it and placing it properly.
I didn’t even look at the other 3. I got the first one, and realized this was a crock. WOuld you care to detail the other 3 now, or should we wait for Mike to correct the omission?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Wow, OK let me make this clear since you’r either too arrogant or stupid to understand the words I’m typing:
You are singling out one author, and not criticising Mike for omitting the background or additional information of any of the others. In this or any other article where he has presented a book without going over the author’s life story (i.e. most of them). There are FOUR authors in this article, and NONE of their histories are so much as mentioned. This is what’s known as bais – and you’re full of it to the point that you won’t even consider the rest of the article, let alone its actual subject.
The information about the author is NOT hidden in any way. Anyone curious enough to check out the book will be presented IMMEDIATELY with his credentials (2nd page of the PDF in clear text). It’s the first thing written in the book after the title page. Adding them here will not change a damn thing, except to maybe scare away idiots like yourself who need to smear any opponent before they’ve had a chance to speak. Anybody intellectually honest enough to at least read the text to see if it matches their blind assumptions will know who he is.
Admit it, you’re a partisan asshole who won’t even listen to the words other people have to say. You won’t even click on the book being discussed to see what’s actually being said. You just make up your mind based on facts you drag out of your ass, which is why you fight windmills the whole time. Still very, very pathetic.
“For the rest of us, getting the context of the information is important to understanding it and placing it properly.”
FFS, you just admitted deliberately ignoring the context of this very article! You didn’t even consider the co-author of this book and what his influence might be, let alone the content of that book or the context in which they are presented. What a hypocrite and a liar you are…
“WOuld you care to detail the other 3 now, or should we wait for Mike to correct the omission?”
I don’t know. Do you want to address the other authors and other articles from which he’s “omitted” their titles and history, or do you only care about this one because you have such a crush on him? Do you want him to treat all authors equally (as he does here) or push your own preferred agenda? I’ll guess the latter. Context, my ass.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“Mike should say “this isn’t a straight book, it’s a listing of the political beliefs of someone running the Pirate Party.”
So every book must be announced with an announcement that it contains political or other subjective views of the author? For crying out loud, even Winnie The Pooh has a social message intended by the author. What are you afraid of, that your “purist” views might be challenged or that others might actually agree with the author?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
What’s especially funny about that comment is that he’s already freely admitted he hasn’t even checked the identity of the co-author of the book, let alone read it and dissected his contents. Yet, he expects everybody here to accept his assertions of a conspiracy based on a supposed lack of information that’s available at the very beginning of the book. Amazing.
All Ages Stream & File Share
‘Today?s copyright legislation is out of balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned an entire generation of **young people** into criminals in the eyes of the law’.
This reads out-of-touch somewhat. All ages stream and file share.
Re: All Ages Stream & File Share
True, but studies indicate that there is a fairly sharp generational divide in communications patterns. The line is drawn somewhere around 35-40 years of age.
Those above it communicate in a one-to-one pattern. Those below it communicate in a broadcast pattern.
There are exceptions, of course, but as a general rule, we are talking about the younger half of the population.
Re:
Don’t you think however that it is pretty relevant information? I mean, understanding that this guy isn’t some sort of neutral middle party (say like an economist working the numbers), but rather a one sided anti-copyright zealot is pretty important for putting the ideas in context.
Specifically NOT mentioning it seems like a pretty big omission.
Re: Re:
Don’t you think however that it is pretty relevant information?
If you find the history of an author to be relevant to how you evaluate their writings, shouldn’t you research it? You have all the information you need to do so, why do you need Mike to feed you the rest?
michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif
How many people brought the copy as opposed to downloaded the free one?