The USSR, the plantation system, the railroad barrons, the oil barrons, the shipping tycoons.
Alot of times people have this misconception that something can be too big, too huge, too much talent and resources behind it to fall from greatness. This isn't true. How many times have we herd that "MS won't let it happen"... Well the fact is, MS's isn't competing against an opperating system, they are competing against a superior paradigm - and their half trillion market cap is nothing compaired to the yearly output of global industry. If they don't go with the flow, they will get squissed like a bug. like it or not.
JV:... But I try to make things simple and clear as I can, and I think that helps you persuade other people.
Money for votes is very simple and clear.
JV:... Because if my ideas have no bottom, then they ought not be even heard.
Doesn't he mean no foundation instead of no bottom? Hearing bad ideas is not a problem, applying them is.
JV: How many people in the United States build their own sets?
How many people direct the MPAA?
JV:.... So once you let the barriers down for your perfectly sensible reason, you gotta let it down for everybody.
Sounds like a good argument to get rid of copyrights
JV:I don't want to get into the definition of morality. I never said anything was immoral in what I was saying. I said it is wrong to take something that belongs to somebody else.
Implying that copying is taking is a definition of morality, but copying is different than taking, and what isn't immoral isn't wrong.
JV: No, you're not a bad person. But you don't have any right.
Restricting what people copy isn't a right either even if it is legal.
JV:.... Un-fucking-believable.
Agreed.
JV: But you're trying to set your own standards.
And you?
JV:... Let me put it in my simple terms. If you take something that doesn't belong to you, that's wrong......
Like all those movies taken from the public domain? In simple terms, copying isn't taking.
JV: Well, we're having it right now. I want to try to find out the point you make on why are there no Linux licensed players. There must be a reason -- there has to be a reason. I don't know.
I do, copyrights are about controll, and Linux is about freedom and libery. Everything has a reason!
I know alot of people fear things like smart robots taking over, but I think the truth is that the smarts that humans have is inseperable from what is known as "free will". So even if there does emerge a society of robots, there is no forgone conclusion that they will unite to wipe out humans or even be un-"human". Just as humans make a wide variety of choices and have a wide variety of opinions, I don't think that would change in a robot world.
... You should also realise that a lawful society depends on all laws being enforced...
A lawfull society has little to do with how laws are enforced, but rather how people choose to respect those laws..... and when you have unjust laws, just people will choose not to respect them, nor should they.
Restricting what pople copy for the sake of upholding entrenched monopolies, is not just in the slightest. And copying something can never be stealing or 'piracy' either - it's bullshit morality, backed up by unjust laws that people should have every right to expect not to be on the books, but if so, at least not be enforced.
...It's acceptable to challenge any law you want, but it also means as a responsible individual you also pay the consequences of that law.....
I've heard this alot, and I'm so sick and tired of it... you're just watching too many movies where someone plays the maryter, or perhaps you're a politician.
OK, so what about Harriet Tubman, she never paid the punishment for running the underground railroad, and she was underground till it was all over. Are you sujesting that as a responsible person she should have put herslef up for execution? Are you sujesting, that if she was caught, that her or anyone should have accepted that fate? Well Bullshit.
Right and wrong choices exist independently of how much you are willing to stand up to the mob for them. Pull your head out, people aren't doing this to win a popularity contest, there are very real reasons to want to share and copy that exist independently of public sympathies.
The "right" to restrict what other people copy, is wrong, is harmfull, is untenable, and unacceptable, is phoney morality, and there are plenty of reasons not to want to go along with it and fight it even if you aren't willing to expose yourself to public lynchings.
You sound like the SCO folks did back in 98... they would say things like "well, Linux is for hobbiests, but not enterprise class like SCO" - yeah right.
Linux has nothing to do with hobbiests, it has to do with free markets and Microsoft has nothing to do with free markets - they half to do with a special government granted monopoly called copyrights. Like any monopoly that gets truely challenged, the consequences are similar and predictable.
The paradigm shift is about not treating software like a physical commodity. The GPL deals with that very nicely.
Several years ago, people were saying that Linux was a toy opperating system, and I was even laughed at for sujesting that a company I worked for should focus on Linux and dump SCO.... well if the market didn't the last laugh on them.
There is often this myth, that if something is real big - it will be arround forever.... they are too powerfull to let themselves crash. It's not true though, renember the former USSR, yeah technically they're still around - but they're not even close to what they used to be. (the oil tycoons, the railroad barrons, the plantation system, etc...)
An MS crash will not result in financial unstability, but will be a result of financial gains elsewhere. If MS looses 10 billion and everyone else in the US gains $100 percapita - that is a massive net economic gain.
The story that I herd was that IBM was in a hurry to get a PC out on the marketplace becuase all of a sudden these small pc's with integrated circuits were competing with their mainframes - so they put together a PC where you could easially interchange the parts (the x86), that way they could mass produce it quickly. However, Compaq reverse engineered the bios, AMD created a clone CPU, and every other vendor started making things compatable with the slots, and drives.
IBM just assumed that they could restrict who makes compatable things for the PC, but they (and Intel) couldn't (because at the time you cound't patent interfaces) and they lost billions worth of lawsuits - so in a panic they created PS/2 line which was supposed to "solve" these problems, and put billions worth of marketing behind it. Needless to say, even though we took some interfaces from it - the PS2 flopped hard and IBM took beaing for it.
FreeBSD allows forking pretty easially, Linux doesn't - so FreeBSD is less able to take exploit the fact that information is becomming commoditized. One of the consequences of being in the information age is that information is becomming commoditized, it has been for a long time, but now it's really taking off.
When a market becomes commoditized, that means that services tend to become more valuable than the item being traded. Translation - industries that rely on copyrights to restrict distribution and drive up profits are dead.
Because MS is not competing with an operating system, they are competing with a paradigm. MS may have a market cap of half a trillion dollars, but the US economy puts out 12 trillion per year alone. If push comes to shove, it won't matter how big MS is - they will get squished like a bug. I renember when IBM spent billions back in the 80's to push the PS/2 (not playstation) on the market place to try and squeese out the x86's already out there. It didn't matter how big they were either, they got hammered.
A big reason for no standardization in the auto industry is simple - it is patents. Basically, the auto industry is fragmenting for the same reason that the UNIX industry fragmented before Linux came along. Each tries to fork off their own proprietary special purpose design and technology to avoid having their products commoditized, and the intellectual property system helps them do it.
If there wern't patents, safety devices like air-bags and antilock breaks would have been in atuos 20 years earlier, and the big industries would tend to copy each other because they could. It would create pressure to standardize because nobody would want to be the odd-ball left out, and it would create a downard pressure on car prices, just like open interfaces do in the PC industry.
Another problem is regulation. The auto industry is far more vulnerable to it because it is not new like the PC industry, and has relied on government intervention for a long time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen auto companies push thru "pollution" and "safety" regulations - to try and increase the barriers to entry in the auto industry, but also push used cars out of the marketplace. Other things they've done are to put quotas or tarrifs on some foriegn made cars. When you do that it drives up the prices dramatcially to where it no longer makes sense to import a cheap reliable car, but rather a complicated one full of bells, whistles, and features.
Moral: Maybe I could call the right to piss in your yard a property right, maybe I could buy and sell shares of that right on the open market, maybe I could say noone has an incentive to piss without that kind of property right. Well that's what the problem is with copyrights and patents, as glorious as they sound, they are not rights nor free market, nor property rights - and this is one of the consequences.
Good point, in fact history is full of inventions and ideas that were developed completely independently at the same time, often on other sides of the planet or country. The telephone, the rubix cube, tv, the airplane, the invention of caclulus.
The truth is knowledge is more often a progression building on commins that are already there. Granting private little monopoies not only ruins and fragments this natural progression, but is also hugely unfair because 90% of most works are not unique, but borrowed from other knowledge and experience that other people choose to make free and then added to.
Unfortunately, you cannot have liberty without security. So you need to choose which liberties are more important.
That's not true though. Liberty provides security, but what it doesn't provide is the feeling of security. There is a big difference.
Those people in old communist USSR may have always felt secure because the government promised them free room, board, and medical care for the rest of their lives - but in truth they were not secure at all. Harriet Tubman may have felt insecure starting the underground railroad and having a million dollar bounty on her head, but the truth is that she was probably more sceure doing that than staying on the plantation to suffer whatever harm would come to her.
Even though I saw you were marked as flaimbait, I think you made valad points. I still don't think it invalidates what I said though. As you pointed out, "freedoms should end when they threaten someone elses freedom, or those who can't protect themselves". - that statement is still making liberty an end in itself.
It just goes to show that there are a lot of nice sounding reasons for us to give up some freedom and have it nickled and dimed to death, but there is one main reason to keep freedom and that is freedom. Unlike these other things, liberty is an end in itself - it derives from the fact that people are creatures of choice and not like the animals. There is no such thing as too much liberty... it would be like saying that science is too rational.
That reminds me of an old quote about copyrights, to paraphrase...
"If you draw a cup of water from the sea, it is yours, if you pour it back it belongs to the commons. All creative works are drawn from the sea of knowledge. Kept to yourself they are yours, but once exposed are the commons."
Let me put it another way. There are systems, and there are people. People do not exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people. Systems are not an end in themselves, the rights of people are.
Now there is a legal system, and a copyright system. Sure these systems exist, sure these systems have a lot of power - the power to screw people sometimes, but the notion that we're just supposed to go along with the system and whatever puinities they set up is ass backwards, and a serious priority screw up - because it gets the relationship between systems and people ass backwards.
Now sometimes it's easier to to get where you need to go by working within the system, other times it's not. Sometimes, it's better to openly defy the system, sometimes it's better to privately defy it - but once again, the system is not the end in itself, the people are.
Translation - those of us who know copyrights are bullshit can, should, and will copy whatever we want freely without feer, without consequence, and with the expectation that nothing will come of it. You can fret all you want, but for the most part the facts are on our side even if the system isn't.
You must have missed the part where I said, "and violated no one" - The purpose of law isn't to tell people what to do, the puspose of law is justice. Justice, not revenge, not controll, not to proactively prevent potential crimes that haven't happened yet, not to create some national order, but justice. That means when someone makes a choice to violate me in some way, then a lawfull action would make sure that they will not have opportunity to make related harmfull choices again.
Second, you are wrong about copyrights. The reason why we have such a copyright problem today is specifically because whenever you assert the right to controll what other people copy - it is going to grow out of controll, until halted - and it has. Sorta like taking away peoples freedom of speech, at first it might just be about one person or subjetct, but I guarantee you it will never stay that way.
OK, heres a little lesson on rights, from what I get here alot of people don't undersand them....
First off, people have rights - these rights exist - like gravity they are there, measurable, observable, and exist outside of the world of opinion.
Second off, people organize in the form of government to secure rights - government doesn't create rights - or even define what's good or bad. They especially don't create peoperty rights even though they've tried a few times with things like salvery (and now copyrights).
Third, people have a right to disobey the edicts of government and a right not to be punished for it, or to expect punishment, if they have violated no one. People also have a right to secure their rights.
Fourth, contrary to popular belief, copyrights are not any type of a right whatsoever. They destroy culture and are an adbomination to the concept of property rights at the very least.
Fith, Valenti can let whoever the hell he wants in his theatres for whatever reason. I say let him suffer the consequences of his choices. But copying is not a crime, and if he doesn't like people doing it he's free to expell them but not prosecute them. (besides, how do you know some foriegner wasn't just trying to prove to his friends that he went to an american movie
From what you tell me, I wander if you're not being screwed, after all - the best way to screw a person over is to tell them they have some special type of right that they don't have and watch them beat their head on the wall trying to make it work.
Something tells me you're not Michael Jackson. That you'd likely be far better off going way out of your way to give away everything you create and encourage copying wherever possible, then develop a "following" who will buy shirts, signed items, and tickes to events you perform at.
Well thats the whole point, there are plenty of other ways to get compensated for your work. Work on commission, do a loss leader, have a tip jar, do a concert, create as a service, whatever... but to assert the right to microregulate how everybody on the planet uses a given piece of information - well, sorry I can't go for that - especially in the information age where the only way to distinguish free speach content from copyright content is to give authorities the power to censor.
I knew he was going to say that because I've heard it so many times. The worst part is that for every artist and writer that copyrights benefit, there have got to be at least a thousand who the copyright system hasn't helped a bit or even screwed. The first time I was attacked like that, I found it so selfish and offensive that I didn't know what to say. Now, I find that the best solution is to call them on it like I did.
The
parent
to this post is not a troll. Lessig knows all the harm of copyrights first hand but still wants to appease the media industries. I think he deserves to be hammered on it and I did. If people don't want to hear it, it's not my fault!
You're obviously not a musician, writer, or artist.
Oh, and one more thing, I couldn't let this go by. I'm actually a musician, writer, artist, and a programmer. Logic wise, it wouldn't matter if I was none, but I am all - and because of that I see the crap related to copyrights first hand.
When people say that to me, what it means to me is that they can't think logically for themselves - so instead they try to probe into my personal life to see if there is some justification to blow me off, and thus ignore the facts about copyrights. Well thanks but no thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
The USSR, the plantation system, the railroad barrons, the oil barrons, the shipping tycoons.
... Well the fact is, MS's isn't competing against an opperating system, they are competing against a superior paradigm - and their half trillion market cap is nothing compaired to the yearly output of global industry. If they don't go with the flow, they will get squissed like a bug. like it or not.
Alot of times people have this misconception that something can be too big, too huge, too much talent and resources behind it to fall from greatness. This isn't true. How many times have we herd that "MS won't let it happen"
JV: ... But I try to make things simple and clear as I can, and I think
... Because if my ideas have no bottom, then they ought not be even heard.
.... So once you let the barriers down for your perfectly sensible reason,
.... Un-fucking-believable.
... Let me put it in my simple terms. If you take something that .....
that helps you persuade other people.
Money for votes is very simple and clear.
JV:
Doesn't he mean no foundation instead of no bottom? Hearing bad ideas is not
a problem, applying them is.
JV: How many people in the United States build their own sets?
How many people direct the MPAA?
JV:
you gotta let it down for everybody.
Sounds like a good argument to get rid of copyrights
JV:I don't want to get into the definition of morality. I never said
anything was immoral in what I was saying. I said it is wrong to take
something that belongs to somebody else.
Implying that copying is taking is a definition of morality, but
copying is different than taking, and what isn't immoral isn't wrong.
JV: No, you're not a bad person. But you don't have any right.
Restricting what people copy isn't a right either even if it is legal.
JV:
Agreed.
JV: But you're trying to set your own standards.
And you?
JV:
doesn't belong to you, that's wrong.
Like all those movies taken from the public domain? In simple terms,
copying isn't taking.
JV: Well, we're having it right now. I want to try to find out the point
you make on why are there no Linux licensed players. There must be a
reason -- there has to be a reason. I don't know.
I do, copyrights are about controll, and Linux is about freedom and libery.
Everything has a reason!
I know alot of people fear things like smart robots taking over, but I think the truth is that the smarts that humans have is inseperable from what is known as "free will". So even if there does emerge a society of robots, there is no forgone conclusion that they will unite to wipe out humans or even be un-"human". Just as humans make a wide variety of choices and have a wide variety of opinions, I don't think that would change in a robot world.
A lawfull society has little to do with how laws are enforced, but rather how people choose to respect those laws. .... and when you have unjust laws, just people will choose not to respect them, nor should they.
Restricting what pople copy for the sake of upholding entrenched monopolies, is not just in the slightest. And copying something can never be stealing or 'piracy' either - it's bullshit morality, backed up by unjust laws that people should have every right to expect not to be on the books, but if so, at least not be enforced.
I've heard this alot, and I'm so sick and tired of it ... you're just watching too many movies where someone plays the maryter, or perhaps you're a politician.
OK, so what about Harriet Tubman, she never paid the punishment for running the underground railroad, and she was underground till it was all over. Are you sujesting that as a responsible person she should have put herslef up for execution? Are you sujesting, that if she was caught, that her or anyone should have accepted that fate? Well Bullshit.
Right and wrong choices exist independently of how much you are willing to stand up to the mob for them. Pull your head out, people aren't doing this to win a popularity contest, there are very real reasons to want to share and copy that exist independently of public sympathies.
The "right" to restrict what other people copy, is wrong, is harmfull, is untenable, and unacceptable, is phoney morality, and there are plenty of reasons not to want to go along with it and fight it even if you aren't willing to expose yourself to public lynchings.
You sound like the SCO folks did back in 98
Linux has nothing to do with hobbiests, it has to do with free markets and Microsoft has nothing to do with free markets - they half to do with a special government granted monopoly called copyrights. Like any monopoly that gets truely challenged, the consequences are similar and predictable.
The paradigm shift is about not treating software like a physical commodity. The GPL deals with that very nicely.
Several years ago, people were saying that Linux was a toy opperating system, and I was even laughed at for sujesting that a company I worked for should focus on Linux and dump SCO
There is often this myth, that if something is real big - it will be arround forever
An MS crash will not result in financial unstability, but will be a result of financial gains elsewhere. If MS looses 10 billion and everyone else in the US gains $100 percapita - that is a massive net economic gain.
The story that I herd was that IBM was in a hurry to get a PC out on the marketplace becuase all of a sudden these small pc's with integrated circuits were competing with their mainframes - so they put together a PC where you could easially interchange the parts (the x86), that way they could mass produce it quickly. However, Compaq reverse engineered the bios, AMD created a clone CPU, and every other vendor started making things compatable with the slots, and drives.
IBM just assumed that they could restrict who makes compatable things for the PC, but they (and Intel) couldn't (because at the time you cound't patent interfaces) and they lost billions worth of lawsuits - so in a panic they created PS/2 line which was supposed to "solve" these problems, and put billions worth of marketing behind it. Needless to say, even though we took some interfaces from it - the PS2 flopped hard and IBM took beaing for it.
FreeBSD allows forking pretty easially, Linux doesn't - so FreeBSD is less able to take exploit the fact that information is becomming commoditized. One of the consequences of being in the information age is that information is becomming commoditized, it has been for a long time, but now it's really taking off.
When a market becomes commoditized, that means that services tend to become more valuable than the item being traded. Translation - industries that rely on copyrights to restrict distribution and drive up profits are dead.
Because MS is not competing with an operating system, they are competing with a paradigm. MS may have a market cap of half a trillion dollars, but the US economy puts out 12 trillion per year alone. If push comes to shove, it won't matter how big MS is - they will get squished like a bug. I renember when IBM spent billions back in the 80's to push the PS/2 (not playstation) on the market place to try and squeese out the x86's already out there. It didn't matter how big they were either, they got hammered.
A big reason for no standardization in the auto industry is simple - it is patents. Basically, the auto industry is fragmenting for the same reason that the UNIX industry fragmented before Linux came along. Each tries to fork off their own proprietary special purpose design and technology to avoid having their products commoditized, and the intellectual property system helps them do it.
If there wern't patents, safety devices like air-bags and antilock breaks would have been in atuos 20 years earlier, and the big industries would tend to copy each other because they could. It would create pressure to standardize because nobody would want to be the odd-ball left out, and it would create a downard pressure on car prices, just like open interfaces do in the PC industry.
Another problem is regulation. The auto industry is far more vulnerable to it because it is not new like the PC industry, and has relied on government intervention for a long time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen auto companies push thru "pollution" and "safety" regulations - to try and increase the barriers to entry in the auto industry, but also push used cars out of the marketplace. Other things they've done are to put quotas or tarrifs on some foriegn made cars. When you do that it drives up the prices dramatcially to where it no longer makes sense to import a cheap reliable car, but rather a complicated one full of bells, whistles, and features.
Moral: Maybe I could call the right to piss in your yard a property right, maybe I could buy and sell shares of that right on the open market, maybe I could say noone has an incentive to piss without that kind of property right. Well that's what the problem is with copyrights and patents, as glorious as they sound, they are not rights nor free market, nor property rights - and this is one of the consequences.
Good point, in fact history is full of inventions and ideas that were developed completely independently at the same time, often on other sides of the planet or country. The telephone, the rubix cube, tv, the airplane, the invention of caclulus.
The truth is knowledge is more often a progression building on commins that are already there. Granting private little monopoies not only ruins and fragments this natural progression, but is also hugely unfair because 90% of most works are not unique, but borrowed from other knowledge and experience that other people choose to make free and then added to.
Unfortunately, you cannot have liberty without security. So you need to choose which liberties are more important.
That's not true though. Liberty provides security, but what it doesn't provide is the feeling of security. There is a big difference.
Those people in old communist USSR may have always felt secure because the government promised them free room, board, and medical care for the rest of their lives - but in truth they were not secure at all. Harriet Tubman may have felt insecure starting the underground railroad and having a million dollar bounty on her head, but the truth is that she was probably more sceure doing that than staying on the plantation to suffer whatever harm would come to her.
Even though I saw you were marked as flaimbait, I think you made valad points. I still don't think it invalidates what I said though. As you pointed out, "freedoms should end when they threaten someone elses freedom, or those who can't protect themselves". - that statement is still making liberty an end in itself.
It just goes to show that there are a lot of nice sounding reasons for us to give up some freedom and have it nickled and dimed to death, but there is one main reason to keep freedom and that is freedom. Unlike these other things, liberty is an end in itself - it derives from the fact that people are creatures of choice and not like the animals. There is no such thing as too much liberty ... it would be like saying that science is too rational.
That reminds me of an old quote about copyrights, to paraphrase ...
"If you draw a cup of water from the sea, it is yours, if you pour it back it belongs to the commons. All creative works are drawn from the sea of knowledge. Kept to yourself they are yours, but once exposed are the commons."
Let me put it another way. There are systems, and there are people. People do not exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people. Systems are not an end in themselves, the rights of people are.
Now there is a legal system, and a copyright system. Sure these systems exist, sure these systems have a lot of power - the power to screw people sometimes, but the notion that we're just supposed to go along with the system and whatever puinities they set up is ass backwards, and a serious priority screw up - because it gets the relationship between systems and people ass backwards.
Now sometimes it's easier to to get where you need to go by working within the system, other times it's not. Sometimes, it's better to openly defy the system, sometimes it's better to privately defy it - but once again, the system is not the end in itself, the people are.
Translation - those of us who know copyrights are bullshit can, should, and will copy whatever we want freely without feer, without consequence, and with the expectation that nothing will come of it. You can fret all you want, but for the most part the facts are on our side even if the system isn't.
You must have missed the part where I said, "and violated no one" - The purpose of law isn't to tell people what to do, the puspose of law is justice. Justice, not revenge, not controll, not to proactively prevent potential crimes that haven't happened yet, not to create some national order, but justice. That means when someone makes a choice to violate me in some way, then a lawfull action would make sure that they will not have opportunity to make related harmfull choices again.
Second, you are wrong about copyrights. The reason why we have such a copyright problem today is specifically because whenever you assert the right to controll what other people copy - it is going to grow out of controll, until halted - and it has. Sorta like taking away peoples freedom of speech, at first it might just be about one person or subjetct, but I guarantee you it will never stay that way.
OK, heres a little lesson on rights, from what I get here alot of people don't undersand them ....
First off, people have rights - these rights exist - like gravity they are there, measurable, observable, and exist outside of the world of opinion.
Second off, people organize in the form of government to secure rights - government doesn't create rights - or even define what's good or bad. They especially don't create peoperty rights even though they've tried a few times with things like salvery (and now copyrights).
Third, people have a right to disobey the edicts of government and a right not to be punished for it, or to expect punishment, if they have violated no one. People also have a right to secure their rights.
Fourth, contrary to popular belief, copyrights are not any type of a right whatsoever. They destroy culture and are an adbomination to the concept of property rights at the very least.
Fith, Valenti can let whoever the hell he wants in his theatres for whatever reason. I say let him suffer the consequences of his choices. But copying is not a crime, and if he doesn't like people doing it he's free to expell them but not prosecute them. (besides, how do you know some foriegner wasn't just trying to prove to his friends that he went to an american movie
From what you tell me, I wander if you're not being screwed, after all - the best way to screw a person over is to tell them they have some special type of right that they don't have and watch them beat their head on the wall trying to make it work.
Something tells me you're not Michael Jackson. That you'd likely be far better off going way out of your way to give away everything you create and encourage copying wherever possible, then develop a "following" who will buy shirts, signed items, and tickes to events you perform at.
Well thats the whole point, there are plenty of other ways to get compensated for your work. Work on commission, do a loss leader, have a tip jar, do a concert, create as a service, whatever ... but to assert the right to microregulate how everybody on the planet uses a given piece of information - well, sorry I can't go for that - especially in the information age where the only way to distinguish free speach content from copyright content is to give authorities the power to censor.
I knew he was going to say that because I've heard it so many times. The worst part is that for every artist and writer that copyrights benefit, there have got to be at least a thousand who the copyright system hasn't helped a bit or even screwed. The first time I was attacked like that, I found it so selfish and offensive that I didn't know what to say. Now, I find that the best solution is to call them on it like I did.
The parent to this post is not a troll. Lessig knows all the harm of copyrights first hand but still wants to appease the media industries. I think he deserves to be hammered on it and I did. If people don't want to hear it, it's not my fault!
You're obviously not a musician, writer, or artist.
Oh, and one more thing, I couldn't let this go by. I'm actually a musician, writer, artist, and a programmer. Logic wise, it wouldn't matter if I was none, but I am all - and because of that I see the crap related to copyrights first hand.
When people say that to me, what it means to me is that they can't think logically for themselves - so instead they try to probe into my personal life to see if there is some justification to blow me off, and thus ignore the facts about copyrights. Well thanks but no thanks.