🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <170a2e74.907ce227@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com> andysch <aschlaflyNOasSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>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.

Nor have I advocated any aspects of copyright management information
beyond a notice requirement.  And I think that a notice requirement
is useful, since it makes it clear that a creator thinks something
is valuable enough to warrant copyright protection.  Registration
may be even better, because then it shows that the creator is willing
to put up a few bucks for the protection.

If there were a notice and registration requirement, it would not
make any substantial difference for a valuable work, and it may give
somebody like Napster a chance to comply with the judge's order
without taking everything down.

The content industry worked hard to get rid of the notice requirement,
as I remember.

You are trying much to hard to paint me as some industry stooge.
Simply because I haven't railed against all of their positions, even
when it hasn't come up in any discussion doesn't make me an RIAA
clone.


>>>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.

I'm not a consultant on anything like Napster, either.  Again, you're
reaching for something that isn't there.  And seem to be accusing me
of something that isn't true, and for which you have knowledge to
base your accusation.

And funny how you snipped out what I did post about my position.


>>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.

In the only court that has considered the matter.  But as of now there
is no court that supports your position.  And my guess is that even
if the Supreme Court unanimously found your argument nonsense, you'd
just find some way to criticize them.


>>>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.

Are you just throwing mud, or do you believe that anybody who posts
something that illustrates that you may be wrong has to be paid by
special interests?


>  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.

More accusations without any justification.  Again, I guess if somebody
doesn't completely agree with you, they must be paid by the record
companies.


>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.

You haven't raised anything.  You have just made unfounded accusations
that I find pretty offensive.  I've never questioned your motives,
just the accurracy of some of the things you've posted.


>>[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.

And saying that the district court that considered your argument
found it wanting, and that we'll see what the appeals court says
is illogical how?

So, it seems that anybody who disagrees with you is being illogical
and likely in the pay of the people you don't like.  Right?

Don't bother answering.  You seem to have little to say beyond
unfounded questioning of my character.  Beyond that, you haven't
posted anything substantial here, and I doubt you will.