Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet

a very good read.

A mixture of ideals and distortions, from an anonymous person taking an extreme position. At least Mike Masnick signs his posts on techdirt.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I didn't until I saw it mentioned elsewhere. And it doesn't appear to say so anywhere on the site.


... 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.

Not until very recently, after the judge forced Google to disclose the names of the "journalists" on their payroll.

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...

and, as for shills...

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

12-08-24 Supplemental Google Disclosures

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