The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Artists and the Internet (Musicians, Filmmakers, Photographers, Etc)
Old 27th August 2012
  #1
Artists and the Internet (Musicians, Filmmakers, Photographers, Etc)

Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet

a very good read.
Old 28th August 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Old 29th August 2012
  #3
Old 30th August 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 

A mixture of ideals and distortions, from an anonymous person taking an extreme position. At least Mike Masnick signs his posts on techdirt.
Old 30th August 2012
  #5
really don?

what part is extreme and distorted?

and why does it matter who the author is, the principles stand on their own independent of any attention starved personalities.
Old 30th August 2012
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Really rack.

See next post for examples of distortion and extreme (not the same things).

Who the author is matters to me. I give more credence to authors when I can verify their influences, agendas and supporters - for example, if they are a member of (or are supported by) a think tank or lobby group. You do this often enough for authors whose viewpoints you don't agree with, so it's hypocritical of you to not do it because you agree with the author's viewpoint.
Old 30th August 2012
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Really rack.

See next post for examples of distortion and extreme (not the same things).

Who the author is matters to me. I give more credence to authors when I can verify their influences, agendas and supporters - for example, if they are a member of (or are supported by) a think tank or lobby group. You do this often enough for authors whose viewpoints you don't agree with, so it's hypocritical of you to not do it because you agree with the author's viewpoint.
Looking forward to the next post... for examples of distortion and extreme... would that be like "break the internet" maybe?
Old 30th August 2012
  #8
Lives for gear
 

As a general rule for the referenced post on the Trichordist, if I don't mention a point made in it, then I agree with that point.


Quote:
FAIR AND ETHICAL LABOR PRACTICES: RESPECT WORKERS’ RIGHTS ...
No problems. It's just as valid if you change "internet" to "society".

Quote:
CONSENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION: RESPECT ARTISTS’ INTEGRITY

Rights secured by the Constitution are intended to protect the individual from hostile majority forces and the tyranny of the mob, particularly the corporate mob. This is especially true regarding copyright, which is itself a vehicle of the right of free expression for individuals, and protected by the Constitution. ...
Copyright has nothing to do with the "right of free expression for individuals." The Constitution explicitly states copyright's purpose and the method of securing it. It also explicitly states the right to freely express yourself. They are not interdependant.

Quote:
PROTECT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: DON’T TRIVIALIZE CENSORSHIP
Freedom of speech requires freedom of expression. Copyright protects free expression. ...
Same as before. In what way does copyright enable you to freely express yourself that would not be possible (or more difficult) to do without copyright?

Quote:
... You don’t have to look very far to see artists being censored by governments–Russia’s Pussy Riot is a current example. No one understands this more than the scores of individual artists, musicians, painters, writers, poets, filmmakers and creators of all disciplines who have actually (and literally) have been persecuted, disappeared or assassinated for their views all over the world. ...
A person's "job title" is irrelevant to them being being censored or persecuted.

Quote:
... Sadly, many confuse the actual freedom of expression with the mistaken idea that preventing the illegal exploitation of that very expression is the same thing. It’s not. ...
Flip-flop. Now the author is agreeing with what I said earlier about the irrelevance of copyright to the right to freedom of expression.

====================
Actually, that wasn't as bad as I thought after first reading.
Old 30th August 2012
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
A mixture of ideals and distortions, from an anonymous person taking an extreme position. At least Mike Masnick signs his posts on techdirt.
What do you mean "anonymous"? Trichordist is David Lowrey's site, everybody knows that, just like everybody knows Techdirt is Masnick's. Of course most don't know that Masnick is a paid shill for Google.

Lowrey, of course, in not a paid shill for anyone.
Old 30th August 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
What do you mean "anonymous"? Trichordist is David Lowrey's site, everybody knows that, ...
I didn't until I saw it mentioned elsewhere. And it doesn't appear to say so anywhere on the site.


Quote:
... just like everybody knows Techdirt is Masnick's. Of course most don't know that Masnick is a paid shill for Google.
... but they have his name, so they can do the research and decide for themselves whether he is or not.

[/QUOTE]Lowrey, of course, in not a paid shill for anyone.[/QUOTE]

"Of course?" Having his name, I can do the research and decide for myself.
Old 30th August 2012
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
... but they have his name, so they can do the research and decide for themselves whether he is or not.
Not until very recently, after the judge forced Google to disclose the names of the "journalists" on their payroll.
Old 30th August 2012
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
As a general rule for the referenced post on the Trichordist, if I don't mention a point made in it, then I agree with that point.

No problems. It's just as valid if you change "internet" to "society".

Copyright has nothing to do with the "right of free expression for individuals." The Constitution explicitly states copyright's purpose and the method of securing it. It also explicitly states the right to freely express yourself. They are not interdependant.

Same as before. In what way does copyright enable you to freely express yourself that would not be possible (or more difficult) to do without copyright?

A person's "job title" is irrelevant to them being being censored or persecuted.

Flip-flop. Now the author is agreeing with what I said earlier about the irrelevance of copyright to the right to freedom of expression.

====================
Actually, that wasn't as bad as I thought after first reading.
so you have a partial problem with three points, two of which overlap or are redundant. I'm not really sure I understand your criticisms (and I mean that sincerely) and don't see anything as either extreme or a distortion, and can't see that you do either. Honestly Don, it looks like your splitting hairs to make an argument.

Freedom of Expression such as 2Live Crew's "Me So Horny" or IceT's "Cop Killer" should not be confused with the wanting to illegally exploit that expression. Too many people equate the wanting to illegally exploit someone else's work as their own right of expression. It doesn't work that way and I don't know why anyone would think it does.

an extreme distortion would be that if we don't allow "permissionless innovation" we will "break the internet." I can't say I've seen any greater hyperbole of extreme distortion than that...
Old 30th August 2012
  #13
and, as for shills...

Weekly News and Recap! Sunday Aug 26, 2012 | The Trichordist

Quote:
A Shill by Any Other Name…
- Google released it’s Supplemental Disclosures, you can read here at scribd.com featuring all the usual suspects and your favorite cast of characters. Listed and described in the document are Public Knowledge, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Floor 64 CEO Mike Masnick (also of Tech Dirt, but who questions why he was included by Google under the reference to the CCIA that he consults for) and others. The judge who ordered the disclosure rightfully understands that he who pays the piper names the tune.
12-08-24 Supplemental Google Disclosures

Judge: Google didn’t follow “show your shills” order | Ars Technica
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump