I saw this…

Here’s what I’ve tagged on del.icio.us on June 4th:

2 Replies to “I saw this…”

  1. “I’m disappointed to read this, Bill – you may have been distracted of late, but in this instance you’ve let the Hive Mind do your thinking for you.”

    I received some critical email this weekend questioning why I was so generous to Lessig.
    Confused? Well, I urge you to listen to the recording of the debate – you’ll find my report fair, accurate and enlightening, and Larry’s points to be irrelevant.

    Such “Fisking” replies are par for the course: they’re intended to mislead.

    For example, he complains that, “I did not say that these creators were of a second class.” A little foolish then, to throw around words like “secondary” and “class” – people might infer that you’re making a differentiation between two tiers of creators! You’ll see if you look at the context, that the point he was making – that amateur contributors should receive some royalties from Google – was faithfully recorded. My question, of where that leaves Lessig’s “primary class”, or who qualifies as this class, is studiously avoided.

    Such is the fine art of “Fisking” – this is a beautiful example.

    We’re both very familiar with Larry’s complaints about being misrepresented or misunderstood – they accompany any and every critical piece about the “movement”. These complaints are then echoed by bloggers whose intention is to bully journalists into modifying their criticism.

    You should know, because you’ve had first experience of this yourself, with both CC and Wikipedia, even after you’ve evangelised both causes. You were promptly slapped down by Lessig when you raised the issue of moral copyright. I may be mistaken, but that was the last time I heard you raise the issue.

    So maybe it works?

  2. So, are you saying, Andy, that the misquotes quoted on my page are not misquotes? Did I say I litigate against “Authors”? Did I say no one from Creative Commons had criticized “Authors”? Or are these “misrepresentations”? And if “misrepresentations,” why wouldn’t you correct them? Does being part of the “professional” media mean never having to say you’re sorry?

    Here’s another “misrepresentation”: Bill raised a question about moral rights. Moral rights are not copyrights — thus, the word “moral copyright” makes no sense. My response to Bill was that CC doesn’t change moral rights. We leave moral rights as the local law sets them. So while there might be lots to criticize CC for, this isn’t one. Perhaps that explains why Bill hasn’t raised the issue again. At least, that’s a better explanation than your charge of cowardice.

Comments are closed.