🚀 go-pugleaf

hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>[snip] Maybe you missed the start of what you quoted -- "There
are many
>times when I think we took a giant step backward ..."  Not
exactly
>the industry position.

The industry position does favor copyright management
information, including a notice requirement.  You also favor a
notice requirement, and have not opposed any other aspects of
copyright management information.

>>When I asked Lee to state his position on retroactive copyright
>>duration extension -- which the industry favors in
contradiction
>>of constitutional and economic logic -- Lee would not state his
>>position.  He thereby kept his record perfect in avoiding any
>>position that might conflict with industry (i.e., where the
>>money is to fund lobbyists and consultants).
>
>Just for the record, I am not a lobbyist and have never been and
>don't intend to be.  And the consulting I have been doing is as
>a technical expert in cases like _Caldera v. Microsoft_.  None
of
>the cases I have been involved with have been industry against
>users, just business disputes.

I said "lobbyists and consultants", so my criticism was valid.
As to "Just business disputes" -- like the one involving
Napster -- they certainly do involve industry v. users issues.

>But I'm not posting here to push my position, but to let other
>readers know that, for example, your assertions about
constitutionality
>have been questioned and found lacking in court.

In *district* court, which never has the final say on
constitutional matters.

>>If I'm mistaken, Lee, then please provide any copyright
position
>>that you hold which is contrary to the industry position.
>
>I try not to express any personal position at all.  Maybe
because
>I point out the problems with what you post makes you assume
that
>I'm siding with your enemies, but that's not the case.

It doesn't matter to me whom you side with.  But it is relevant
and fair to question whether your postings are sometimes
motivated by potential consulting fees rather than logic.  Logic
and money can conflict, and in an intellectual debate it is fair
to criticize an argument (or ducking an issue) as being based on
a financial conflict-of-interest rather than logic.

>But read what I've just said, and you might detect some
differences
>from the industry party line.

I don't detect any opposition by you from the industry party
line in any respect.  Nor do I expect you to oppose the industry
party line as long as you're interested in earning consulting
fees from industry.

I'm not criticizing consulting itself.  But when you participate
in a debate by dodging central issues, then it is appropriate
for me to raise this.

>[snip] The head of then RIAA herself could post those
corrections,
>and they wouldn't be any less valid.

Logic is logic.  But when the head of RIAA or yourself takes
illogical positions or refuses to address essential issues, then
it's fair to mention the influence of financial motivation.

Andy



-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com