I can't think of anything more utterly petty than this response. Your whole life is wrapped up attacking some guy that runs a blog. I'm glad it entertains you so much. I will avoid reading anything you contribute in the future.
So what if he doesn't take a stand. He doesn't have to and that's his perogative. He's going to do and say whatever he wants and you're left complaining about it.
If you don't think he's honest or trustworthy, why come to his website - constantly - to try and out him. What's in it for you? You've been on this blog for years. That's one very sad life. Why do you care so much?
Find something you love to put your energy toward, rather than something you hate.
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
If you actually believe he brings nothing useful to the table, then why are you eating it up? Why not find something more nutritious?
And as I saw earlier today, the only reason people demand feedback from Mike is so that they can make every effort later to use those words against him.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me? All you seem to be interested in is discrediting the blog owner.
And I find it amusingly ironic that you dog Mike for making sweeping statements in an article about politicians and lobbyists making sweeping statements - people whose statements have far more influence than anything said here. But I guess you agree with those sweeping statements so it's fine.
And now I'm sorry I bothered to reply to you at all.
Um... it's been stated here many times that it would be better for artists to embrace infringers rather than litigate against them, and relaxing copyright law instead of creating harsher laws is more likely to make them more money.
Make a law that people can respect and they just might respect the laws. It's pretty hard to respect a copyright law that block my attempts to be creative in so many ways.
Seems like a typical instance of a politician lying to a special interest to garner their favor. He knows it won't happen and he doesn't have the power to make it happen, so he can talk about it all day like something's going to change and everyone's happy.
You're assuming the person that uploaded the photo owns the copyright. A lot of what is on flickr, esp. the for the kind of old photos that would be considered orphan works, the copyright holder if far more difficult to find than a simple image search.