Workin' awfully hard there, Comrade...

Search Techdirt:

I think it's obvious he does. I don't think he's trying to hide it.

What might be (moderately) more interesting to find out is does he have equal contempt for other forms of IP: ie. trademarks and patents?

Revealing article on him here:

Plugged/Unplugged: CwF+RtB = WTF?


And this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuxMJ8lnYA4

I especially like how he forgets to mention that lack of scarcity is due to illegal behavior.


Looking at this guy, I'm gonna make the snap judgment that he knows less than zero about musicians, songs, studios. Hell, anything music related.

Masnick's "formula" about how to make money is so ridiculously general that it would be laughable if so many people didn't take it as gospel.

He hasn't explicitly come out as being against copyright, but if you follow his site, he's come out against so many aspects of copyright doctrine that it's extremely difficult to see what's left that he would support. For example, he argues that even uncompensated commercial use of creative works is fine.

He is so intent on pushing an anti-intellectual property viewpoint that he has not once, but twice felt compelled to directly respond to my own articles:

• Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft | Techdirt
• Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property? | Techdirt

his entire advice to the Recorded Music Industry is to, and I quote "sell a lot of t-shirts"... as terry points out, as comical as it is sad... but to be fair it's not just mansick... hyperbot and a host of other pro-tech, anti-copyright, pro-piracy sites that ALL guess what, have an agenda to benefit from the exploitation of FREE CONTENT paid for by some one else...

my bottom line is this... if lessig, mansick, and the rest of them think that paying to create content that will be given away for free is such a great idea and growth market, then why aren't any of them investing in record labels, or film production companies?

hmmmmm... because it's a lot easier to take, than to create... and it's a lot easier to give something away that has value, when you don't have to pay to make it...

They haven't, and name one case EFF, Publicknowledge, CreativeCommons, or TechDirt has taken in favor of creators.

Hell, name a case where Creative Commons has stood up for its licensees? You'd think, what if a 16 year old girl put her pictures on Flickr under a Creative Commons license and a multi-national corporation used them in an ad campaign?

Creative Commons position? Sorry you didn't understand the terms of the license, we're gonna try on work on those in the future.

But don't worry, they're working on a new fundraising campaign at the moment to raise a couple more million dollars, maybe they'll cover that aspect of their reverse EULA's for creators.

Bottom line, if you are infringing content, you have plenty of organizations who are willing to help you pro bono. If you are actually helping create content, you're on your own.

Yeah, I'd say he does...

Sarkozy Wants To Use Anti-Censorship Conference To Promote Censorship By Copyright | Techdirt

"We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship."



Oy...

Techdirt is becoming more one sided in the propaganda war than the Chinese Communist party.

Put in simple terms, copyright protects the intellectual rights of others. If your 'free speech' relies on using other people's ideas, then I guess there's a slim point to be made here.
Of course, most people speak for themselves, and as such copyright has absolutely no ill effect on new ideas and the freedom to express those ideas.

it's just a repeated talking point ... as if repeating a lie enough times makes it the truth...