Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP Refuses To Debate Lessig
An anonymous reader writes "Back in June ASCAP oddly declared war on free culture, specifically calling out Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge, making a number of false statements about all three. The war of words continued as the three groups responded politely, pointing out the errors in the statement from ASCAP's Paul Williams. Larry Lessig wrote a blog post where he asked Williams to debate these topics, saying that it might help if they could get away from making false statements. Williams has now publicly declined to debate saying that it's not worth his time, and once again attacking these groups for trying to 'silence' him. It's difficult to see how a request for a public discussion and debate is an attempt to silence, but that's ASCAP's position and they're sticking to it."
SIILEEENCE!!! I keel you.
Boredom is bliss.
Stop trying to confuse him with the facts!
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
His position is well thought-out and basically unimpeachable, while theirs is untenable and distasteful.
Wouldn't that come out in a debate?
Also, I think you'll find that arguments and legislation have "changed the truth" exactly as frequently as debates have: never.
It's difficult to see how a request for a public discussion and debate is an attempt to silence
Simple.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
ASCAP has nothing to gain and everything to lose by debating Dr Lessig. Organizations like ASCAP, RIAA, etc act with impunity because they don't have a face. There's nobody to identify - there's nobody to criticize. They like to stay in the shadows and let their lawyers do their work, and the lawyers can claim that they're just "representing their client" so you can't even point to them.
I'm sure that Mr Williams from ASCAP would just as soon never have been identified as being associated with ASCAP because now this faceless organization has a face. I'm surprised that he even made those idiotic public statements because usually those things are put forth by press releases from PR firms who can also claim removal from the actual organization. Most people don't even know that ASCAP exists, much less what they actually do. Their main goal was to create FUD about "anti-copyright extremists" and "pirates" and "hackers" and "terrorists" and then come across as an honorable organization that's standing strong against the worst elements of society.
I don't think we'll be hearing a lot more from Mr Williams, much less seeing him stand up to Dr Lessig's examination of ASCAP's statements and behavior.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Anyone who views an offer of debate as an "attempt to silence"(barring extreme cases like someone with a particularly mockable speech impediment, for which "debate" might well just involve having the crowd laugh at his expense. I'm assuming that you don't become head of ASCAP that way, though. Almost certainly a lawyer or business type who knows how to talk to a boardroom.) must see acting with impunity, and without external input, as their right be default, and thus the idea of someone else having equal footing becomes an attack, not simple justice.
It is rather like the fanatics of various stripes who scream that they are persecuted when they are not allowed to persecute others. Their worldview is warped so far toward themselves as the default, that any attempt to prevent them from harming others is seen as an assault on their rights.
This is only half-true, because the quote only talks about "they." It's missing what you have to do:
First they ignore you
Then you hold some public meetings
Then they laugh at you
Then you fill a room with 5,000 people
Then they fight you
Then you lobby legislators
Then you raise some money
Then you put 10,000 people in a room
Then you write a bill
Then you lobby legislators
Then you raise some money
Then you reintroduce the bill
Then you put 10,000 people in 500 rooms
Then you raise some money
Then you lobby legislators
Then you win
In other words, Margaret Mead was wrong.
They both value culture.
Haha, good one!
ASCAP thinks a system that pays people to produce culture produces more/better culture.
Holy shit, you're serious... Look, I hate to break it to you, but no, they don't. ASCAP favors a system where they make money, and they think a system where they get paid more money is better than a system where they don't. The problem is that when a bunch of people who don't really produce anything (music industry executives) and make shit tons of money for it cry out that they can't afford an extra week in Cabo on their 3rd yacht until next quarter, normal people's overwhelming response is something to the effect of "go fuck yourself with hacksaw"... so instead they complain that it will be the end of Western Civilization if people extrapolate modern commodity technology to the logical end. A few of their arguments might have some merit, at least in the (very) short term, but for the most part they boil down to "if we do things differently, things won't stay the same, " which is a pretty lame argument for just about anything, if you think about it.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
The next time you go out to eat, ask the chef if you can have the meal for free. Tell him that if he's really passionate about his work he should just share it with everyone.
This is symptomatic of the problem right here. You, dear music producer, seem to equate things of limited quantity (food) to things that are infinitely reproducible (digital performances). This is simply idiotic. Think back to that chef. Imagine he can prepare a dish one time and copy it infinitely forever. He could serve one helping to every person on the globe with no additional cost or effort on his part. How many chefs would refuse to do that?
Your beef isn't with the attitude, per se. You're just not able to grasp the difference between physical resources and creative effort. This is probably simply due to your bias, as a professional in that industry surrounded by others likewise. It is very human. However the reason you're not finding a raft of sympathy outside of those circles is because it logically doesn't make sense to the rest of us. The fact that copyright even exists is a gift, a charity, as are royalties, etc. Imagine being born Chinese and having this same opinion. You'd starve...
Anyway, I'm not expecting to change your mind. And I wanted to say that your post was very well-written and hits all the highlights one would need to go for that angle. I'm just hoping to illustrate that in a world of physical reality, it falls pretty flat.