1. “Celebrity” says something manifestly stupid.
2. Mike highlights that fact, and explains why it’s stupid.
3. “Anti-Mike” immediately — and reflexively — defends “celebrity” stupidity.
4. Other posters jump in and start to troll-smash “Anti-Mike” (don’t get me wrong, he richly deserves it — and I’ve done it myself.
5. Other posters protest that he’s “just expressing a different point of view”, proving that they have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of things like subtext (hint: “Anti-Mike” is a tip-off as to his real agenda for posting here.)

This pattern repeats over, and over, and over in EVERY thread. Oh wait, I’m wrong: occasionally (and refreshingly, I might add), “Sam I Am” pops up, posts yet another revision of his patented “civil liberties are expendable when commerce is threatened, but I’m no friend of the Cartels”-speech, and STILL manages to completely fail to ever address issues like whether copyright is a limited-duration monopoly privilege, whether corporate lobbyists/their corporate paymasters have violated the “copyright bargain” by (retroactive) term extensions, etc. etc.

Don’t take him up on it, folks: I’ll admit I had quite a bit of fun with him over on p2pnet — and other places — but I can tell you from previous experience that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN SAY — no point you can raise, no “evidence” you can give — that has any chance whatsoever of “turning” Anti-Mike OR “Sam I Am” into free-culture activists.
They are corporate shills of the lowest order, and the mere fact that “Sam I Am” can DARE to claim that our “civil liberties” are expendable, but corporate excess is NOT, is pretty much all the proof you need.

And the absolute worst part of it is: *WE* hand them everything on a silver platter, the moment we make it an issue of whether creators are “getting paid”. Debating the merits of particular business-models is all well and good, provided that there remains some sphere of cultural life which does NOT get reduced to mere pecuniary haggling.

Because, quite frankly, some methods of “getting paid” are indefensible: corporate lobbyists buying themselves out of the “copyright bargain” just to squeeze a few more decades of extortion out of their monopoly — should be regarded as problematic ESPECIALLY when those defending such tactics dismiss the negative impact such draconian measures will inevitably have on our “civil liberties” as of no concern — OR EVEN BLAME THE VICTIMS.

Sure, trolls: the corporate megaliths/their cronies in government “Have to” resort to totalitarian bullshit. The essence of all such “arguments” is that “freedom” is only tolerable WHEN IT ISN’T USED. Recognition of monopoly privileges for what they are, urging that those privileges be CURBED in the greater public interest, or even acknowledging the fact that coercive attempts to FORCE such privileges down everyone else’s throats WILL BE RESISTED EN MASSE, is somehow just viewed as a thinly-veiled cover-story by those who supposedly “don’t want to buy stuff”.

I’m out, folks. Have fun “debating” the same tired, idiotic nonsense with the same recurring cast of trolls, shills, and wannabe-tyrants. Fuck it.

I’m not going to bother, because quite frankly, if what they’re trying to do *isn’t* resisted, then we deserve whatever they can manage to do to us.

Keep up the good work, Mike.
“Sam”: nice to see you back! I actually admire the tenacity, although I still wonder why anybody who (by his own admission) “hates” the corporate media megaliths because they “extort” him for the use of “their” still-monopolized content (yes, I still remember!) wouldn’t be right there on the front-lines of these issues, advocating AT THE LEAST, for really serious copyright reform/a resurgent Public Domain.

But whatever.

1. Why exactly is Novoselic thinking exclusively in terms of “financial” compensation, here? The fact is, whether Youtube explicitly “pays” him (or anyone, for that matter), they are being “compensated” by way of free — gratis — access to the platform itself. It’s extremely short-sighted of him not to understand that fact.

For example: I know that if people come here to read Mike’s posts, they’re at least somewhat likely to see my comments. “Anti-Mike” knows exactly the same thing. So does “Sam I Am”. We *all* know that one of the biggest ways to both get *our* viewpoints out there AND possibly impact the prevaling worldview in regard to stuff like copyright, the public domain, corporate influence in the political process, etc. — is by commenting here, discussing stuff with with one another, suggesting stories, etc.

Same goes for *all* bloggers — at least half of the “brand-identity” (and resulting “value”) comes from the audience/fans. Does this mean that Mike — or any other blogger — should “compensate” those who comment on his blog/suggest stories, etc. by PAYING us?

The *real* question is whether Krist agrees with Bono’s notion that ISP’s should be compelled to spy on their own users, simply so already-wealthy corporate-owned “celebrities” can squeeze a few dollars more.

Anti-Mike tries to defend itself, by stating:

“
As for my posts, I find that there is much of what Mike posts that is sensationalized or twisted to meet an agenda or belief set that he works from. More often than not, there is missing facts, overlooked angles, and outright misrepresentation of “facts” by only highlighting certain things and ignoring other things that would go against the premise. A lot of people do it, even the mainstream media is guilty sometimes of giving a 30,000 foot view because a closer look might screw up a good story.”

Gee, like, say, how *you* consistently ignore the history and original purpose of copyright law? How you relentlessly defend the corporate-owned status quo? No thanks. Your “agenda” isn’t about “taking a closer look”, and you know it. Your agenda isn’t about “injecting balance”, either. Your agenda is — and always has been — defending whatever Mike happens to dislike, and misunderstanding whatever Mike is trying to say.

“I also tend to object to bootstrapping and posts that can lead people to think that opinions are facts. I tend to point that out, because it often changes the way things play out. DRM tax, anyone?”

What, like major-label “artists” opinion that they *deserve* to be paid for any and all uses of “their” content, such that there’s effectively no such thing as “fair use?
Like the specious “opinion” expressed by corporate shills that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between “illegal” downloads and lost sales? Or maybe you mean the “opinion” expressed by many anti-p2p/IP-apologist trolls, that copyright skepticism is simply about “not wanting to pay for stuff.”

Get over yourself, anti-mike. As I told Jon Newton back when he became BFF’s with Billy Bragg and Lily Allen over on A2f2a: the corporate media oligarchs don’t NEED — or DESERVE — help in what they’re trying to do. THEIR “agenda” is blindingly obvious, simply because the keep having copyright terms extended, and disruptive technologies banned. Sorry if realizing that “screws up a good story” about “poor, hardworking artists getting screwed by evil pirates.”

And the fact is, advocating police-state tactics JUST to preserve what was only originally intended to be an extremely short-lived commercial monopoly privilege is INDEFENSIBLE.

Get that through your thick skulls, stop apologizing for draconian bullshit, or at LEAST acknowledge that existing IP law is *drastically* out of control, instead of actively advocating that it be made worse.

Then maybe some of us will stop thinking you’re a troll.