Why Won't Creative Future's Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?

from the a-tragically-rhetorical-question dept

If you look in the dictionary, the word “projection” has many different definitions. I find it particularly amusing that in Merriam Webster’s dictionary, the following two are right next to each other:

  • the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
  • the display of motion pictures by projecting an image from them upon a screen

This is a story that kind of involves both of those definitions, because it’s all about a front group, created and funded by Hollywood, very much “projecting” its own blame, guilt and responsibility onto one of the most respected and thoughtful copyright law professors. And… almost no one wants to comment on the organization’s shameful tactics. Perhaps some of you might help in my ongoing efforts to get literally any of Creative Future’s members to explain why it still supports the organization after its shameful smear campaign over the past few weeks and months.

Some of you may recall that during the run up to Hollywood trying to get Congress to pass SOPA, a terrible pro-censorship, anti-internet, mysterious Hollywood front group showed up called Creative America to advocate for SOPA. It was a Creative Disaster. While pretending to be a “grassroots” effort by “creatives,” it came out that the organization was actually very much created by Hollywood’s biggest studios:

CBS Corporation, NBC Universal, the Screen Actors Guild, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Viacom, the Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. Entertainment

The grassroots effort completely collapsed and Creative America received widespread mockery on the internet. In early 2014, the organization brought in new leadership and took on a new name: Creative Future, with the same Hollywood studios behind it, the same bogus “grassroots” rhetoric, but now lead by a former Hollywood studio boss. The board of Creative Future has remained staffed entirely by Hollywood big shots. The most recent filing from the organization shows that its Board of Directors includes: Alan Braverman (Senior VP and General Counsel at Disney), John Rogovin (Exec VP and General Counsel at Warner Bros.), Leah Weil (Senior Exec VP and General Counsel at Sony Pictures), Kimberly Harris (Exec VP of Comcast and General Counsel at NBC Universal), Jean Preweitt (CEO of the Independent Film & Television Alliance), Christa D’Alimonte (Exec VP and General Counsel at Viacom), Carl “Chip” Smith (Exec VP of Public Affairs for 21st Century Fox, at least until earlier this year when Disney took them over). It’s notable that D’Alimonte only joined in April of 2017, at the same time as Michael Fricklas, who was Exec VP & General Counsel at Viacom, left both Viacom and the Creative Future board — more or less confirming that Creative Future is a mouthpiece of the big Hollywood studios, and when one person leaves a studio (as Fricklas did), they’re immediately replaced by a new person from Hollywood.

In other words, Creative Future is pure astroturf, and is 100% about representing the interests of Hollywood’s biggest studios.

Over the last few years, it seems that Creative Future has gotten more and more unhinged in its conspiracy theory pushing. Earlier this year, for example, it attacked the DC think tank R Street, because it had provided a grant to us. Creative Future declared that this somehow proved that R Street was “anti-copyright,” because (it claimed) we are “anti-copyright.” This is wrong on so many levels — in particular, because the R Street grant as specifically for our Working Futures project, and the money from the grant was used to pay authors to write creative science fiction stories. And, I would bet Creative Future’s entire operating budget (of over $3 million) that the contract we gave to those authors (in which they retain the copyright to their stories and are told they can do whatever they want with those stories, including republishing them elsewhere) was a hell of a lot better than the contracts any of the companies on Creative Future’s board signs with its “creatives.”

But we’re something of a sideshow here. The real anger from Creative Future over the past few years has been directed at EFF. For reasons that I cannot comprehend, a few extraordinarily confused Google haters, like to insist that EFF is a Google front group. Creative Future is one of the most vocal about this (see the above definition regarding projection). Creative Future actually is a Hollywood front group. The idea that EFF is a Google front group is crazy. Remember, EFF has regularly criticized Google’s practices, including filing an FTC complaint about Google’s privacy practices and is currently fighting hard against Google concerning how California’s new privacy law will be implemented.

And, for all the talk of claims that Google “funds” EFF, Google gave EFF a grand total of $7,500 in 2018. That’s out of the $15.1 million that EFF brought in, nearly $10 million of which came from individuals (either by themselves or their own personal foundations). In insisting that Google really funds EFF, Creative Future likes to point to various cy pres awards, in which a court forces Google to give money to EFF to atone for some sort of wrong doing. That’s not, in any way, Google choosing to fund EFF. It’s a court punishing Google over its failures, and having it fund EFF and others as punishment. Between Creative Future and EFF one of these organizations is a front group for a set of giant corporate interests, and it ain’t EFF.

But Creative Future has its bogeyman, and so when news came down that EFF had appointed renowned and incredibly well-respected copyright law professor Pam Samuelson to be its new board chairperson, Creative Future went on the attack. It first published a hilariously full of “projection” blog post accusing Samuelson of being “anti-copyright.” It’s not even remotely worth debunking each of the points, other than to note that not a single one of them is accurate. It repeatedly frames reasonable positions taken on copyright as extreme. It takes statements of opinion — including the claim independent artists (you know, the ones not supported by Creative Future’s esteemed board of legacy Hollywood big shots) are put at “some disadvantage” in fighting piracy — as “lying to lawmakers.” What? It also (perhaps no surprise) claims that Samuelson’s reasonable arguments regarding the copyrigtability of APIs in the Oracle/Google fight proves she’s anti-copyright.

That last one is particularly stupid, given that Samuelson has been among the most knowledgeable experts on questions regarding the copyright of interfaces since before Google existed, and the idea that siding with Google in the Google/Oracle case is “anti-copyright” suggests a near total lack of understanding on the topic.

There’s a lot more in there, but nearly all of it is projection a la the top definition that I quoted at the top of this article. Creative Future is a front group. Creative Future regularly lies. Creative Future always defends Hollywood’s biggest studios, and not the interests of independent artists.

In response to this fact-free smearing of such a respected professor, Microsoft (who no one would ever claim is “anti-copyright”) told Creative Future to remove its name from Creative Future’s list of “members.” Microsoft has chosen not to comment publicly on this issue, but two separate sources confirmed to us that the decision to leave Creative Future was 100% in response to the smearing of Prof. Samuelson, which people at Microsoft believed to be beyond any reasonable standard of decorum, even if the company still supports Creative Future’s mission. Most organizations might stay quiet when receiving a rebuke like that, but Creative Future instead tried to brand Microsoft as anti-copyright, because apparently facts are completely optional in the delusional world of Hollywood.

Creative Future then decided to run a second article smearing Samuelson, literally blaming her for Microsoft deciding to disassociate itself with the organization:

We?re also unhappy because she asked Microsoft why their logo was on CreativeFuture?s website. In response, Microsoft emailed us asking us to remove their logo. Of course, we did so.

This statement is somewhat telling. For all of Creative Future’s attempts to describe the hundreds of organizations on its website as “members,” it seems quite clear that most of them are not “dues paying” members. They just have their logo on the website.

With that in mind, I began to wonder what were some of the other organizations on that same page of logos, and what they felt about their name being associated with flat out lies being used to smear one of the most respected law professors in the world. There are hundreds of logos on the page. Over the past few weeks I’ve contacted somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty of those members to ask for any comment on the situation. Below are all their comments.

Ha ha, just kidding. Not a single organization was willing to comment on the record. The vast majority completely ignored my request. A few sent back generic “no comments.” One said the situation was “complicated.” Oh really? The most startling to me, however, were the organizations on the list whose focuses are entirely about promoting women’s voices, and fighting back against stereotypes about women. I figured, at the very least, those organizations — including Women in Film, Women Make Movies and the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media — would at least have something to say about an organization put together by Hollywood’s biggest studios smearing such a respected female law professor.

But, nope. None of them wished to comment — even after it was pointed out that Microsoft had left Creative Future over this mess.

Other organizations that I thought might have a bit of a spine, but who refused to comment: Alamo Draft House (I will find other places to watch movies, thanks), the American Film Institute, Comscore, Crackle (do they still even exist?), IMAX, the Jim Henson Company, Legion M, Miramax (you’d think, post Harvey Weinstein, they’d be more open to recognizing issues, but nope), National Hispanic Media Coalition (this one’s especially disappointing, as they’ve been a staunch ally on net neutrality, and even posted a guest post on Techdirt earlier this year), PodcastOne, the Tribeca Film Institute, and many, many more.

And, of course, none of the giant Hollywood studios, which set up Creative Future and hide behind its “edgy” attacks on people, wanted to comment either. I wonder why, Disney, ComcastUniversal, Viacom, Sony, and Warner Bros., might want to ignore the fact that an organization that they set up and control, is out there smearing respected law professors? Actually, I don’t wonder at all.

Anyway, I recommend that people scan Creative Future’s big list of “logos” and see if you recognize any. Feel free to ask them (politely, of course) why they’re willing to have their name associated with an organization smearing such a well-respected professor with outright lies?

In the end, though, this all comes down to pure projection — and not the one that involves a screen. Creative Future is a front group for big businesses, pretending to be a “grassroots” group for creatives. As such, it can’t even imagine that there really are legitimate organizations like EFF that are actually focused on protecting individual rights and are actually supported by individual members. And thus, they feel the need to project Creative Future’s own sins upon such organizations. It also can’t imagine that someone like Prof. Samuelson, with her decades of clear, careful, nuanced, and thoughtful writing and advocacy on better copyright law (i.e., copyright law that protects everyone’s rights, not just big Hollywood studios, and includes in that the public’s rights), could possibly come by her positions honestly.

This whole episode has been revealing. Not about Prof. Samuelson or EFF. But it’s said an awful lot about the type of people who run the major Hollywood studios. Alan Braverman, John Rogovin, Leah Weil, Kimberly Harris, Jean Prewitt, Christa D’Alimonte and Chip Smith: this cowardly attack is on you. If you’d like to actually provide a real comment on this nonsense you’ve helped create, you know how to reach me.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: cbs, comcast, creative future, disney, eff, google, microsoft, nbc universal, sony pictures entertainment, viacom, warner bros.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Won't Creative Future's Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
108 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Sometimes silence says a lot

By refusing to comment on the matter the default assumption, until they do comment, should be that they support what has been done and said and are just too cowardly to come out and admit it.

Microsoft may not have issued an official statement on the issue but they at least had the guts to make clear that they did not agree with what had been done and were willing to make that displeasure clear by disassociating themselves from the pack of dishonest fearmongerors, and if a company like them can do so any of the rest could as well, if they actually objected to what had been said.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Sometimes silence says a lot

Another option is the same idea as "one-issue voters".
They support the extreme copyright positions of the (wrongly named) Creative Future, and are completely indifferent as to the means that the Hollywood front uses to that goal, or the other positions it might advocate.

Indifference is not support, but I agree that it doesn’t reflect well on them either way.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: I'm not saying I support X... but I do support the group doing X

Indifference is not support,

In cases like this I’d argue that even if it’s not direct support for all intents and purposes it is support. If a group you’re a member of is engaging in reprehensible behavior, you are informed about it and you not only don’t leave the group but when asked what you think about what’s being done/said your only response is silence the two factors, staying in the group and not making clear your objection should be seen as support.

It would be one thing to belong to a group, not agree with everything they do and making clear your objections but sticking with it because you feel that the overall goal is worth the cost, but staying silent even when you are faced with something deserving of objecting to? At that point the only difference between stating support or just implying it is honesty and a few words, as the two are functionally interchangeable.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Or, to quote Elie Wiesel:

We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the center of the universe.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Didn’t even have to read the article to know that one of a dozen or so names would turn up as the "defended."

Funny how this site uses guilt-by-association all the time, and is SO concerned about litigants, specific cases, all stuff of interest to LAWYERS who are restricted by bar ethics from saying things that "journalists" can because they don’t have law licenses to protect.

A grant is basically a HANDOUT anyway. For someone who talks about business models being the key to success, that tin cup sure is a nice thing to have when the rich like what you’re saying.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Khym Chanur (profile) says:

Re: Bar ethics rules?

and is SO concerned about litigants, specific cases, all stuff of interest to LAWYERS who are restricted by bar ethics from saying things that "journalists" can because they don’t have law licenses to protect.

What bar ethics rules are you talking about, specifically? On Twitter I’ve seen two lawyers, T. Greg Doucette and Mike Dunford, comment heavily and deeply on the Vic Mignogna defamation case. On several occasions people have speculated that Doucette might be violating bar ethics rules, in which cases he responds with the address of his state’s bar association, inviting them to file a complaint about him. So, the impression I get is that, for the most part, lawyers publicly commenting on cases isn’t against any bar ethics rules.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Bar ethics rules?

First off, I wasn’t naming any specific lawyers. This seems to be an attempt to literally put words in my mouth.

So, the impression I get is that, for the most part, lawyers publicly commenting on cases isn’t against any bar ethics rules.

Depends on the nature of the commentary. Explaining what both sides are trying to accomplish is one thing, but slanted language about the suit and/or the parties crosses over into legal opinions which require due diligence that is not performed by outsiders.

There’s talk of people who pretend to be lawyers online, but more often we get lawyers pretending NOT to be lawyers to avoid accountability. Moreover, the bar association doesn’t sanction people much even when their conduct is egregious, as noted by many who comment here on "copyright trolls."

In a world run by sociopaths, the only rule is the law of the jungle.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Prove it or shut the fuck up.

This tone shows I struck a nerve in "Stephen."

The funny thing is a single HONEYPOT can collect all the info once it gains their trust. Boy those lawyers love to brag about "how the world works" and show how powerful they are when they think they might get laid.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

That isn’t proof, it’s baseless speculation coupled with the paranoia of a conspiracy theorist. Prove your bullshit or shut the fuck up.

No need to prove anything to you and no need to be silent. Obviously this BOTHERS you an awful lot, almost like you have a personal stake in this matter.

You’re quite the internet ghost for someone who posts with such a detail-rich name.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Khym Chanur (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Bar ethics rules?

First off, I wasn’t naming any specific lawyers. This seems to be an attempt to literally put words in my mouth.

I was only mentioning them as counter examples. I didn’t mean to imply that they were among the lawyers you were talking about, or that the particular case was one you were talking about.

Explaining what both sides are trying to accomplish is one thing, but slanted language about the suit and/or the parties crosses over into legal opinions which require due diligence that is not performed by outsiders.

Both the lawyers I provided as examples have provided plenty of slanted language about the cases AND lawyers, and Doucette has even repeatedly stated that one of the lawyers is guilty of malpractice. And, again, Doucette has provided the address for his state’s bar whenever anyone has claimed that he’s violated bar ethics, inviting them to file a complaint against him.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Khym Chanur (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Bar ethics rules?

Also:

but slanted language about the suit and/or the parties crosses over into legal opinions which require due diligence that is not performed by outsiders.

Do you mean that, as far as bar ethics is concerned, it counts as legal advice, like a lawyer would give to his or her client? (In which case a non-lawyer publicly writing the same opinions would be guilty of practicing without a license)

Or do you mean that bar ethics recognizes a "legal opinion" which isn’t given to a client, to a member of a legal action, or to the court, but the bar still requires a lawyer to perform due diligence? If you mean the latter, can you cite the particular bar ethics rules you think apply?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Bar ethics rules?

Do you mean that, as far as bar ethics is concerned, it counts as legal advice, like a lawyer would give to his or her client? (In which case a non-lawyer publicly writing the same opinions would be guilty of practicing without a license)

Postings that could be construed as legal opinions or advice can be treated as UPL, and there was a point in time where this was considered, but obviously no one is being pursued for that these days. There are still other reasons for lawyers to hide that way, such as avoiding bad reviews, conflicts of interest, or if they are secretly involved in one side of the case and really just harassing an adversary.

Khym Chanur (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that people like Mike are secretly being paid by lawyers to express the opinions of those lawyers, how exactly should that sort of thing be caught? If a non-lawyer is expressing lots of specific legal opinions about specific cases, a DA or AG should subpoena their communications and/or finances to see if they are in fact being secretly paid? Get a warrant to tap their communications? What?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Bar ethics rules?

"Postings that could be construed as legal opinions or advice can be treated as UPL, and there was a point in time where this was considered, but obviously no one is being pursued for that these days."

No, no one ever did, and obviously not.

Even a loose nod towards your argument means Freedom of speech and opinion goes bye-bye.

"There are still other reasons for lawyers to hide that way…"

No, there really aren’t.

Is this just another attempt by you to build a case around Russel’s Teapot by claiming that there’s a vast conspiracy of legal eagles all trying to undermine your arguments?

Or are you not quite that delusional and are just trying to derail the debate with the typical malicious rhetoric you spout around here?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

On the contrary that’s is something they should be bragging about, ideally as early in their comment as possible, as it makes clear that the rest of it can be dismissed and ignored and therefore saves people time.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Ah, the good old "the troll wins regardless of whether you post or not" trope, because nothing says moral superiority like "if you do anything to me, you lose!"

This "be the better person" garbage wasn’t funny the first time, and it sure as hell isn’t funny the three thousandth either.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"If anyone is keeping score that’s another point for the trolls."

Sadly the poster otherwise known as Jhon, formerly known as out_of_the_blue, Bobmail, et. al….isn’t your regular troll.

He’s been around for years, repeating the exact same nonsense again and again and again – and his hopes is that once people stop responding he can start trying to convince the rest of his views.

We can’t be sure he’s a paid astroturfer for the copyright cult but given the hours he’s put in it would be a tragedy if he spent all of that time embarrassing himself pro bono.

So we make sure to always take the time to put down just WHY his latest gibberish is utter nonsense.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"Thanks for describing your business model, cupcake."

You can’t blame old Bobmail for being grumpy about it. He can’t bring himself to beg nicely, robbing people at gunpoint is illegal – and extortion by intimidation is becoming less easy each day, as judges wise up to copyright trolling.

We should probably ask him to work for a living, but I’m afraid he’d have a heart attack…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Miramax (you’d think, post Harvey Weinstein, they’d be more open to recognizing issues, but nope)

Bold of you to assume Miramax rid itself of Weinstein (and any connections to him) for any reason other than PR spin. Also bold of you to assume Miramax changed its corporate culture to prevent further Weinstein-esque abuses.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Federico (profile) says:

Italian Film Commission

I notice one of the logos is from the "Italian Film Commissions".
http://www.italianfilmcommissions.it/en/

According to a presentation they gave to the Senate of Italy, the film commissions are branches of the local government of Italy ("ente di emanazione regionale").
https://www.senato.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/attachments/dossier/file_internets/000/001/547/Italian_film_commissions.pdf

So not only they’re smearing a respected law professor, but it’s also foreign state-funded smearing? I wonder if this complies with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Italian Film Commission

A sham ‘grassroots’ group that isn’t what is would like to portray itself as used someone’s logo without their knowledge in order to dishonestly make it look like they have more support than they actually do?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Italian Film Commission

used someone’s logo without their knowledge in order to dishonestly make it look like they have more support than they actually do?

And what’s it called when you use someone’s logo to imply endorsement?… That’s right kids… it’s Trademark Infringement.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Actually, it might be a bit more than mere trademark infringement.

Using a name or logo similar to someone else’s name or logo is trademark infringement.

Using someone else’s name or logo to intentionally imply their endorsement is fraud — and there’s not a bad chance it could become defamation, too, if such a phony endorsement causes negative consequences for the victim.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Italian Film Commission

Another interesting angle: the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Mississippi Film Office are also listed. These are not merely funded by, but directly part of the United States government, and so there are significant Constitutional restrictions on the sorts of speech that these groups can endorse.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Well now here’s a group that would probably be interested in the lawyer-hacker alliance that astroturfs and defames people online by targeting litigious people through planting defamation that is then linked to in order to set "useful idiots" up into repeating the defamation and getting sued so that the lawyers can make money (the hackers are paid up front), with "bloggers" then further covering the lawsuit and often ridiculing the plaintiff. Or they just use it to retaliate as was shown by the Rose McGowan lawsuit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Please cite a single legal case, anywhere in the world, where your bullshit plan has ever been used by any lawyer or any layperson. The case need not be a successful one; it just needs to fucking exist.

The Rose McGowan case shows how the weapon is used by lawyers and internet "operatives," which is sufficient to prove its existence without putting targets on the backs of others, though in McGowan’s case it was retaliatory and not a setup.

Slanted language regarding the claim is an indication of bias, btw.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

TasMot (profile) says:

With all of the talk on TechDirt about the idiots filing defamation suits for telling the truth about them, here is a great opportunity for the EFF to file a defamation suit against Creative Future and their blatant lying about the good professor. At least to get filings into the courts about their membership (as in not really grassroots), the discovery process should be a lot of fun against this organization, including their board of directors and their past history of association, etc., etc. If indeed they are false statements, then it would not be a SLAPP suit and should move ahead with discovery and go to trial. This would be an especially good chance to out the front group, their theology of hate, and there associations. PLUS, the EFF could include a RICO charge (too far maybe /sarcasm).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Great article, MM.

All that silence is rather interesting. M$ pulling out was notable. Frederico’s discovery of "logo abuse" was interesting. But, possibly the best of all was Wyrm suggesting they pony up the 100 million + 1.

This is why I read TechDirt. Great articles, often with novel and interesting community commentary.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"All that silence is rather interesting. M$ pulling out was notable. Frederico’s discovery of "logo abuse" was interesting."

Not to mention the discovery they also use the Italian Film Commission’s logo without that organizations knowledge or permission. Comedy gold…

Well, they ARE creative, I’ll have to give them that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Your loss of an opportunity to learn. We’re you likewise so uninterested in learning as a student in class? People here wax poetic about just how much outstanding info can be found on the internet. Apparently exerting even a modest effort to find information that might upset their preconceived world views is viewed with disfavor. I constantly search for pro and con information on a wide variety of subjects. I encourage you to try it rather than relying exclusively on biased points of view as presented in the article here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Yeah, just gonna stop you there and save you some effort typing. You made the claim, you back it up, and continued attempts to get other people to do your work is only making your claim look more and more ludicrous and unsupported, so if that’s all you’ve got don’t bother wasting my or other people’s time with more garbage about how awesome it is when people do your work for you, as you’re not fooling anyone and are just making clear how utterly empty your claim was and is every time you double-down.

However, if that’s not good enough I can simply turn your trick around and assert that vastly more people disagree with you than agree, and if you want evidence for that you’re welcome to find it yourself, with refusal to do so not in any way demonstrating that such a claim is flawed, merely that you’re too lazy to look into the matter sufficiently to understand it. If that’s good enough for others then it damn well be good enough for you, unless you’d care to add some hypocrisy on top of your attempted shifting of the burden of proof.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I’ve already done my work over 40+ years of practicing law. I rather doubt you have done much more than peruse the internet for echo chambers such as is often the case here, and as a result what you have is a one sided view of issues that are actually much more involved and nuanced than you seem willing to admit. Of course, you could help solve that by doing some personal research, but that seems to be something you are not interested in pursuing. That is your loss.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Surely in those 40+ years of studying law, at some point you have discovered that making a claim without citing a valid case or statute to support that claim, especially after the validity of the claim has been questioned, will not get you very far.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"I’ve already done my work over 40+ years of practicing law."

A loose claim of arguing from authority with not a single verifiable fact or argument other than "you do my research for me because I can only be bothered to shitpost"…

That sounds suspiciously like bobmail/Jhon/Blue once again trying to assert they’re an expert on whatever subject is being discussed while STILL failing to provide anything other than the argument of a child throwing a tantrum.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

For someone who claims to have practiced law for 40+ years, you sure don’t seem to understand how an argument works.

We have no obligation to do your research for you. As the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. Don’t you have to provide citations and explanations in your legal work?

At any rate, here’s how this is supposed to work: you provide a source for your claim, and from there, we can do research to verify or refute it. All you’ve given us is a vague instruction to google for something (what, exactly, is unclear). At least provide some directions for where to look and what to look for. You have done neither.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I made no legal arguments, nor did I request anyone perform research on my behalf. The fact you seem convinced otherwise reflects to me a disinterest in actually learning something about the issue.

Interesting that you say nothing about the author of the article, who stated he had no interest in debunking what was said in the linked article. Do you tend to accept things at face value without demanding some measure of proof.

As for the prof who was “smeared”, if you were familiar with that person’s body of work you would not be so quick to jump on the “she was done wrong” bandwagon presented here. She is a knowledgeable academic, but that alone does not mean that everything said in the linked article is devoid of merit. For example, the ALI restatement activities discussed is shared by a large contingent of persons widely respected for their knowledge of copyright law. While I would not have made the point using their language, I and many others have expressed concerns within professional organizations that her activities have the hallmarks of one who is trying to do an end run around a political process and body of law that has not found favor with many of her personal views. Even one treatise writer who holds her in high regard questions the appropriateness of the restatement project.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

"I’m going to insult you all for being anti-copyright idiots, except I’m not, but since you thought I was, I’m going to insult you for it! Except I’m not really so you can’t be mad at me for doing so! Because I’m not! Or I am! But I’m not! Wright was wrong, and Steele will win his appeal, just like Liebowitz!"

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

"I made no legal arguments…"

You offered opinion, then presented your self-claimed 40+ years worth of legal "expertise" as the sole argument as to why your opinion should be held sacrosanct.

That’s a shit rhetoric trick called "arguing from (unverifiable) authority".

"…nor did I request anyone perform research on my behalf."

Yes you certainly did. Or rather you made the statement that anyone doubting your unbacked assertion should do the research or stfu.

"Do you tend to accept things at face value without demanding some measure of proof."

The proof being that Microsoft DID pull out of Creative Future and the OP’s opinion that Creative future, being the fiasco which was "Creative America" with only a new name to show as the change?

Yes, when someone claims the sun is shining and we read that statement sitting under the shiny yellow orb in the firmament we DO tend to accept that assertion. To continue the metaphor you, otoh, make the claim that the sun is a square and demand anyone doubting you to verify otherwise.

Seriously, Bobmail, you should have learned by now, and I guess we’ll have to tell you again, that no one will fall for a shit argument whether you wrap it in a verbose wordwall or not.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I made no legal arguments,

No, but you made factual claims, which you must back up with evidence if you want us to take them seriously. Just like you have to back up legal arguments, you also have to back up factual claims at some point in litigation.

nor did I request anyone perform research on my behalf

Yeah, you did, in a way. You told us to do our own research in order to answer our questions about what you said. That’s doing research on your behalf, whether you realize it or not.

Like I said, the burden of proof is on you.

The fact you seem convinced otherwise reflects to me a disinterest in actually learning something about the issue.

Well, that’s where you’re wrong. I’m asking you to provide information or direction so that I can learn. That said, I’m not so invested in the issue that I have to know in order to make any substantial decisions. I want to know, but I don’t need to know. At any rate, I’m a college student, and I am very busy right now. I don’t have the time to comb through what every single academic or organization thinks about the EFF, trying to find some unspecified piece of information that you can’t be bothered to explain or point us to. How am I supposed to learn anything when I don’t know where to look or what to look for? (And no, “Google” is not enough.)

Interesting that you say nothing about the author of the article, who stated he had no interest in debunking what was said in the linked article.

Because I have nothing to say about that in this thread. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m only interested in what you said, not what the author of the article said. It really doesn’t matter. You made a claim and failed to provide any sources or reasoning to back it up. That’s all I’m concerned about right here and now. At least the article cites to some sources. You don’t even do that. Don’t try to use any whataboutisms here. It won’t work.

Do you tend to accept things at face value without demanding some measure of proof.

First, you need a ? at the end of that sentence.

Second, no, I don’t. That’s why I’m asking you for proof. For the purposes of this discussion, I am not taking any firm position on the validity of the claims against the professor. I find them doubtful at first blush, but that’s just my initial impression; it’s not based on evidence, and it could easily change. So I’m not just taking the author at their word. I’m taking a fairly neutral position on this. I can believe that neither of you have provided sufficient evidence. Who I choose to focus on first in my limited spare time is unimportant.

As for the prof who was “smeared”, if you were familiar with that person’s body of work you would not be so quick to jump on the “she was done wrong” bandwagon presented here.

Outside of the fact that I’m not jumping on that bandwagon, and I have no idea why you think I am given the fact that I intentionally avoided saying anything like that, I am somewhat familiar with her work (though, again, not enough to take a firm stance on this issue). That limited familiarity is why I am somewhat skeptical about the claims against her, but I’m not outright denying them.

She is a knowledgeable academic, but that alone does not mean that everything said in the linked article is devoid of merit.

True, but some of them are stretching a bit, like claiming she’s biased in Google’s favor.

For example, the ALI restatement activities discussed is shared by a large contingent of persons widely respected for their knowledge of copyright law.

Like who?

While I would not have made the point using their language, I and many others have expressed concerns within professional organizations that her activities have the hallmarks of one who is trying to do an end run around a political process and body of law that has not found favor with many of her personal views.

What personal views? Which activities? When has this happened? And who are among these many others? Which professional organizations?

Even one treatise writer who holds her in high regard questions the appropriateness of the restatement project.

Again, who?

Also, you again make claims without citing sources for them. And you fail to name any names or specific events that I could do any real research on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Merely FYI, my initial comment that resulted in so many responses was directed to the author of the article who was claiming a linked article was a smear job of falsehoods. I merely pointed out to the author that I was familiar with what was being said and noted that the general claims being made in that article were not unique to it and were shared by numerous individuals and groups almost certainly known to the author proclaiming a smear of Ms. Samuelson. For example, I have read numerous articles, comments, letters, etc. from attorneys, businesspersons, professional organizations, politicians, etc. who have decried and strongly criticized Ms. Samuelson’s efforts associated the what is taking place at the ALI concerning a restatement involving copyright law.

Since you and some others chose to inject yourselves by commenting on a matter over which you almost certainly have no first hand information, my response to each of you was to take some time to read up on the matter if you wanted to discuss it with some measure of familiarity. By responding as you did you made it only too clear you were not interested, choosing instead to accept the unsupported claims by the author of this article at face value. Had any of you taken even a few brief minutes to search for what is available on the net concerning the ALI project, you would have quickly found numerous writings by others in consonance with what was said about the project by the group being charged here with a smear job.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Again, who? Please be specific so we can find this information ourselves.

You’re seriously missing the point here. No matter how you say it, you’re still making a claim here: that numerous others have the said the same things, while also implying that these sources are reliable. That alone would be one thing, but there’s also what you failed to do, even when asked: provide evidence, sources, names, or details. And yet you expect to be taken more seriously than the author, who has built up trust over time and provided sources and some reasons for their claims.

But really, I am not commenting on the quality of the article in asking you this; I’m only talking about what you said.

(And, FYI, your comment suggests that you couldn’t be bothered to read my reaponse. You’ve only repeated what you already said. You haven’t explained who, nor have you explained what ALI has to do with anything to make me think it’s even relevant here. Again, saying “look up something” isn’t enough. I already said that what the author said or failed to say is irrelevant for my purposes in this discussion. I already asked you to explain who you’re referring to in your claims. I already asked you to cite a source that we can check. I already explained that “Google it” is insufficient. Don’t respond to my comment if you aren’t actually responding to anything I actually said.)

Your demanding from us to do research that you won’t do to support your claim, demanding to be presumed more trustworthy than the author of this piece as far as firsthand knowledge goes, the complete dismissal of any questions and concerns we have without justification, and the general tone of your comments suggests that you are not worth taking seriously. You haven’t given us a reason to do additional research because you won’t even give us any initial research that you’ve done. Your dismissive attitude will only alienate people further. Honestly, whether or not your claims have merit or not, you are failing to support them and alienating observers from taking your side. You’re making conclusory statements without providing sources or justification. That’s not how arguments work. If you had just said you disagree or dislike the article, that’d be fine; I wouldn’t have gotten involved. It’s your complete refusal to provide any evidence whatsoever that got me involved; it was never about whether I believed you or the author.

At any rate, unless you’re willing to provide some kind of evidence for your claims, don’t bother responding to me, especially if you’re just going to repeat yourself again without actually addressing anything that I said. Again, I’m not going to do research into something if you can’t show that you’re willing to do so in order to support your claims. For the last time, this is about your claims, not the author’s, and the burden of proof is on you. I’m not going to respond any further if you cannot be bothered to add anything new and useful to the discussion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

I understand the desire to come to the defense of a friend, but that does not change the fact that that friend is viewed in a critical light by many who are intimately familiar with copyright law and whose views on the law diverge significantly from hers. Calling such persons “foolish” just because their views differ from hers and yours results in others not taking you seriously, even when you offer provocative points that merit serious consideration.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"I understand the desire to come to the defense of a friend, but that does not change the fact that that friend is viewed in a critical light by many who are intimately familiar with copyright law…"

Oh, stop it Baghdad bob.

those "many" who view Pam in a "critical" light are doing so by outright lying.

Whereas those "intimately familiar with copyright law" apparently include some of the biggest copyright trolls on the planet. As demonstrated amply by visiting their homepage and counting the number of trademarks which have been added without their owner’s consent.

I’m afraid that once again, Baghdad bob, there’s just no way you can reasonably spin this to your advantage. When even Microsoft backs away in disgust it’s quite telling that "Creative Future" is as big and steaming a bowl of turds as it was before it had to change it’s name in the hopes people would forget what a shit-show it represented.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Sigmund FR/O/G/S says:

...yeah, but who are “they?”

Projection: remote viewing another persons mind, only to find the worst part of your own.

Freud is rolling in his cocaine lined coffin right now…..????

re: have something to say about an organization put together by Hollywood’s biggest studios smearing such a respected female law professor.

Oh, easy on the,conspiracy theoriesabout the Hollywood ~mafia~kosher nostra “ganging up on” some damsel in distress.

Everyone knows that Hollywood isnt run by some mysterious group of gangland descended people who …control…..oh, never mind….whoever “they” are.

Its funny how, when the freezepeach chickens come home to roost, the looney faux-left comprised of tribal sectarians bitches about shit on their lawn, and a lack of people to help them clean it up, having ~watched~ cackled like a murder of crows as the looney altRight was deplatformed, and smeared off the internet.

No one seeks common ground anymore, and it is costly in so many ways.
????
(hoping the tilde performs the strikethrough)

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...