Comments on: “You Have to Know Who Has Your Stuff” http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/ Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: How to Get Rid of Cellulite http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-41586 Mon, 06 May 2013 19:56:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-41586 Αttractive section of cоntent.
I just stumbled upоn your weblog and іn accesѕion capital to
assеrt that I аcquire actuallу enjoуed асcount youг blog postѕ.
Any wаy I will bе subscribing to your augment and еѵen I achiеvеment you accesѕ conѕistently quiсkly.

my page: How to Get Rid of Cellulite

]]>
By: Rocket Spanish http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-40256 Fri, 03 May 2013 10:59:07 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-40256 obvіously likе your website however you hаvе to test the spelling on seveгal of уour posts.
Severаl of them аre rife with sρеlling pгoblems аnd I in findіng іt veгу bothersome to іnform thе truth hоwever I wіll
surеly сome back аgain.

Μy web-sitе :: Rocket Spanish

]]>
By: Nikon D7100 review http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-38821 Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:30:45 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-38821 Hi! I’ve been reading your blog for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Porter Texas! Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent job!

Here is my web page; Nikon D7100 review

]]>
By: Adrian Lopez http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19094 Wed, 03 Aug 2005 02:56:34 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19094 When you hear a “libertarian” speak of freedom, be mindful of the sort of freedom he advocates. If there’s one thing Libertarians love above everything else it is the concept of “private” property. They will argue against the tyranny of “statists”, yet will defend almost any kind of restriction if it’s framed in terms of private property. The government should not interfere with the rights of property owners, yet the property owners are free to impose whatever rules they deem necessary to protect their private interests. Tyranny is wrong, unless it emanates from private interests.

If a nation were owned by private entities and those entities joined together to establish a common set of rules and the means of enforcement, the same people who now cry tyranny would defend the property owner’s interests. Those who own no property would be subject to the terms imposed by the property owners, and no “libertarian” would dare cry tyranny. When the landlords are happy, the libertarians are happy.

]]>
By: nate http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19093 Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:54:15 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19093 poptones –

Your last post _was_ nice, as were some of your first ones. The ones in the middle were unnecessary ad hominem attacks. I thought rodander offered a very reasonable interpretation of what you wrote, and fairly politely asked for you to clarify.

The nature of communication on the internet (or anywhere really) is that one can not know what another ‘means’, one can only try to interpret the words they used to express that meaning. When someone offers an interpretation of what you have written that does not agree with what you ‘meant’, take it as an opportunity to clarify what you did mean. If instead you assume your original wording is unambiguous and unequivocable, and angrily accuse the questioner of being unable to read, people will begin to ignore you and the otherwise worthwhile points you have to make.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19092 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:23:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19092 Exactly what was “not nice” about my last post?

I will not apologize for responding angrily to someone who – twice – insists on telling me and the rest world “what I meant.”

I well admit I tend to idle on 11, but I do make an effort to “give” as nicely as I get.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19091 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:27:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19091 poptones, please do not pollute this blog with your angry missives. you have had some interesting and informative things to say, but your ad hominen attacks on rodander and overbearing attitude are WAY OUT OF LINE.

please try to stay on topic. it is easy to derail these threads with rants about things tangential to the issue being discussed. if you continue with your angry shouting we will all suffer.

you are most welcome to participate, but we three blind mice must insist that you exercise a little more restraint and decorum. as fellow dissenters we assure you that if you show some respect for this community you will be richly rewarded.

now play nice.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19090 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:05:09 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19090 The kmart case is only one example of what is becoming a widespread practice and I’m not even sure if it was a “he” or a “she.” The AFC is an infamous organization that has even been the subject of a BBC documentary – the rev wildmon has been a thorn in the side of this area for decades now and his “american taleban” AFR network is coast to coast.

Can the state compel a druggist to dispense? In some states yes. A refillable prescription is considered in many states to be property of the owner and has to be filled upon demand. I would certainly defend a druggist’s right to expression and as an example I’ll point out I now do not do business at all with one druggist near me – where I used to go for ALL my medicinal needs – because of a political “booklet” of nonsense the owner posted near the cash register before the last election. Likewise, if you go to a druggist and that druggist refuses to fill your prescription or gives you a lecture about the evils you (or your doctor) are perpretrating then it seems the logical thing to do is to tell them to stuff it and go elsewhere.

But no matter, the point is that this nation is quickly descending into the same oppressive fundamentalist tyranny we are allegedly trying to stamp out half a world away. When the rights of individuals (especially women and girls) are threatened even over how they appear in public that tells me we are but a step from selling bhurkas at the wal-mart.

]]>
By: rodander http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19089 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:57:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19089 poptones, I couldn’t help it. I had to come back to see your response. So let me lighten things up a bit.

If you did not mean that the pharmacists do not have the Liberty to refuse to dispense, or that the boycotters do not have the Liberty to boycott, then I stand corrected. If you mean that they have the Liberty to do these things, but that you think they are wrong, then OK. So I’m asking which it is. Your original post was confusing, then.

I am not familiar with the facts of the pharmacists’ case. But it is indeed plausible that the aborting agent was not an available drug when they started work at kMart. So this maybe was not an issue upon employment, but became one later; surely they have the right to bring suit if a non-frivolous issue exists? And if they are required by all employers to dispense, and they feel strongly, then yes they should find another line of work. But surely you are not saying that the state can force them to dispense?

And if the local DA is overstepping his office and power, then complain about THAT. But the commercial boycott is surely within the group’s liberty to spend their money as they wish, and to convince others to do the same. Surely you are not saying that the state can compel their silence?

By purely private actions I mean actions of individuals, or groups of individuals, as distinct from government action. And yes, our private actions, including expressive actions, affect those around us. Maybe they convince, maybe they offend (obviously my comments have offended you — sorry if that’s the case), maybe they help, maybe they are not relevant.

That is the nature of our liberty, one of the unalienable rights with which each of us humans is endowed. Including those we disagree with, and those halfway around the world. And a right worth fighting, living, and dying for. On that you and I may well agree.

See you down the road.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19088 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:41:30 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19088 No, goddamnit, I’m not going to end it on that. because your last assertion was provably wrong.

two examples of purely private action…

A pharmacist working at k-mart was fired for refusing to do his job. A person came into the K-Mart store and the pharmacist refused to fill the order the patient had for an aborting agent. This was a patient who had, in counsel with a doctor of her choice, decided this was the proper avenue. And when that person was fired for refusing to do his job as an employee and for refusing to refer her to someone who would, he sued k-mart.

If I hire you to decorate my house and I provide you a paycheck and you refuse to decorate my house, you are not doing your job and I have the right to fire you. If you don’t like the way I want my house decorated – if I want it spread wall to wall with pornography and this offends you – you STILL have not done your job and you have no right to sue me for not agreeing to fund your narrow view of the world. If you are a pharmacist looking for work at k-mart it is not at all reasonable to expect you will not be required to dispense drugs you may not agree with. You look elsewhere for a pharmacist owner who shares your beliefs or you find a different line of work altogether.

This is not a “private action” because it affects other people’s lives. And so far as the tupelo wildman, I’ll invite you to come live in the area for a while and see for yourself just how “private” the actions of the “center for the america family” really are. When you have a ten year old girl and her family being intimidated by the local district attorney because a group of loudmouth religious fanatics don’t like the clothes she models (clothes purchased from a children’s clothing store at the local mall), that is not “private action.” We send young men to Iraq and Pakistan to die while “liberating” those people from this sort of oppression while that same religious tyranny festers in those boy’s very own back yard.

Yes, goddamnit, I’m indignant. I’m fed up. And I will thank you again to not tell me or anyone else “what I meant.” If you are not clear on ‘what I meant” then ask me.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19087 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:19:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19087 the unstated ultimate conclusion…

A conclusion you made based upon assumptions you drew from things I did not say.

Over and (indeed you appear) quite “out.”

]]>
By: rodander http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19086 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:00:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19086 My last word follows:

poptones, your premise appears to be “if one would remove one’s fingers from one’s ears one would not be quite so deaf to the last gasps of Liberty…” To support this premise, you used (among examples of government action) two examples of purely private action: 1) the pharmacists’ refusal to dispense, and 2) a group of private citizens engaging in a commercial boycott of Disney. One can reasonably conclude from this that you mean that these examples of private action based on personal belief are contrary to the concept of Liberty — the unstated ultimate conclusion being that such (private) actions should not be permitted, for the sake of Liberty. That is what I called you on.

And there is no way for you to tell from my posts whether I agree with those beliefs or actions. I may well not. But your assumption that I do shows that your concept of Liberty depends on which side of an argument one is on.

Over and out. Namecalling is boring. Sorry, group.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19085 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:28:12 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19085 …that is exactly what you meant. How dare anyone believe such things as the pharmacists and boycotters do, much less take (private) action.

You are free to be an ignorant, brainwashed religious zealot to your heart’s content… just so long as you do not try to legislate you misguided and dysfunctional morality upon me. And increasingly that is exactly what is happening in this country.

I’m tempted to call you an arrogant and illiterate jackass – but I won’t. Instead I will, with as much indignance as I can muster on this page, invite you to not pretend to tell ME – much less anyone else capable of understanding the written word – what I meant.

]]>
By: rodander http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19084 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:59:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19084 poptones: not to get into a back-and-forth so as to bore everyone else, but that is exactly what you meant. How dare anyone believe such things as the pharmacists and boycotters do, much less take (private) action.

Of course, whatever you happen to believe is well-founded, rational, and completely reasonable. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you cannot possibly be reasonable; they must be ignorant or a zealot.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19083 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:23:43 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19083 poptones’ concept of Liberty is to force private individuals, namely pharmacists, to take action contrary to their deeply held personal and ethical beliefs. Or, apparently, to prohibit private citizens from organizing a commercial boycott, also based on personal beliefs.

i said no such thing.

I point out those cases only to make clear that ignorance and zealotry is more widespread in this nation than ever… and it is coming to a police force near you.

]]>
By: James Day http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19082 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:19:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19082 three blind mice,

The nanny state fits, for it also includes welfare, both individual and corporate.

One person has no inherent right to stop another person from doing the labor required to copy a book or anything else. It’s a completely artificial construct of copyright law intended to reward one person by restricting the normal right of the other person to expend their labor in any way they see fit, by creating a partial monopoly in that labor market, enforced by law.

Since it is a government act which does things like prohibiting making copies of the Bible (can’t copy the King James Bible in England without permision from the state church) it’s unsurprising that the government is regarded as a major player. Similarly, publishers have long been going to the government to get laws changed to modify the terms of their copyright bargain retroactively.

]]>
By: Rob Myers http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19081 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:01:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19081 Where on earth do you live? Because I can tell you from the front lines: things are most definitely not “quiet” here in the South of the US.

poptones, “have been less quiet” means that they have not been quiet. I agree with your examples. I’m sorry if I was unclear.

]]>
By: rodander http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19080 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:09:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19080 poptones writes:

“And all over the place we have pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for “morning after” pills or even birth control pills on the grounds of “protecting life”".

poptones’ concept of Liberty is to force private individuals, namely pharmacists, to take action contrary to their deeply held personal and ethical beliefs. Or, apparently, to prohibit private citizens from organizing a commercial boycott, also based on personal beliefs.

Who’s wearing the size 11 boot?

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19079 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:40:23 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19079 The spectres of government, corporation or church have been less quiet of late, trying to restrict freedom across the West (UK-ID, DMCA/EUCD, UK Religious Hatred Act).

Where on earth do you live? Because I can tell you from the front lines: things are most definitely not “quiet” here in the South of the US.

Right next door in Birmingham we have the local authorities trying desperately to make the case (and largely successfully) that any photographs taken of a child with her legs even slightly parted is an obscenity worthy of “the nanny state” threatening the integrity of the family unit (and you can imagine how this would play out for those trying to photograph junior varsity sport events like gymnastics or cheerleading). We have the tupelo wildman rallying the troops to boycott everyone from Disney to Ford simply because they recognize the rights of homosexuals to exist in our culture. Where I live there still is not even an over-the-air ABC television affiliate!

Over in Texas we have a state representative passing legislation outlawing “lewd cheerleading” – meaning teenage girls are not allowed to “grind their hips” or “shake their booties” or any of those other things teenage boys find so motivating.

Just north of that we have yet another state representative demanding medical records from abortion clinics for selected young women. They are justifying this by employing the now familiar bodysnatcher wail “protect the children from pedophiles” by claiming these underage girls who were in need of abortions have obviously been engaging in underage sex – which means the state prosecutor simply must bring their “rapists” to justice. Of course, this all has nothing at all to do with an agenda of restricting women’s reprpoductive rights in kansas… it’s only about “children” who were obviously “victims of pedophiles” (never mind that the records being subpoenaed are not of “children” at all but of older teens).

And all over the place we have pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for “morning after” pills or even birth control pills on the grounds of “protecting life” – never mind most of those states support capitol punishment and some of them even extend this “priviledge” (after all, it saves them a lifetime behond bars) to minors and retardates.

Quiet? Perhaps if one would remove one’s fingers from one’s ears one would not be quite so deaf to the last gasps of Liberty…

DRM is a gift to all these interests, not just those in liberal democracies. The theocracies of the Middle East and the remaining Communist states of the Far East have been far more active.

Ah, of course: DRM is a gift to the state interests of China. Too bad they don’t seem to realize this yet, as invention or even mere possession of encryption technology is entirely forbidden there to the non-elite. Perhaps we should send you there as ambassador to explain this to them: putting robust encryption in the hands of a half Billion potential dissidents and student radicals is really serving the interests of their oppressors!

You raise the spectre of the romantic individual losing their “rights”. But DRM is a way of denying that individual exactly those rights.

So is a size 11 boot to the neck.

Bring on the DRM!

]]>
By: rodander http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19078 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:29:44 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19078 An earlier post this week wondered how the freeculture movement could enlist more artists. Andy’s post shows that the current freeculture movement is not be able to do so. And until it respects creators of original artistic expressions more than it does derivers and mashers and copiers, it will never be able to do so.

]]>
By: Rob Myers http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19077 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:39 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19077 mice -

The spectres of government, corporation or church have been less quiet of late, trying to restrict freedom across the West (UK-ID, DMCA/EUCD, UK Religious Hatred Act). The theocracies of the Middle East and the remaining Communist states of the Far East have been far more active. DRM is a gift to all these interests, not just those in liberal democracies.

You raise the spectre of the romantic individual losing their “rights”. But DRM is a way of denying that individual exactly those rights. And DRM takes control and enforcement of those rights away from the individual’s state-given legal representation, giving them instead to a technology company that can change them on a whim.

In DRM, who gives you your “rights”? Who manages and enforces them? Who have those rights, and that mechanism, been designed to serve?

DRM serves distributors, serves institutions, first and foremost. This makes it opposed, in principle, to the interests of producers and consumers in the market. Pleading instead that it will serve individuals is a rhetorical technique that can be traced back to the time of the Statute of Anne.

Incidentally, the idea that enforcable electronic “Intellectual Property” has great social potential is one that at least one Marxist agrees with. See Wark’s book that I mentioned, “A Hacker Manifesto”.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19076 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:43:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19076 …in my outreach experience (in totally different subjects), I find it’s refreshing and unusual to be completely honest. I learned that I don’t need to say (for example), “Copyright is BAD BAD BAD.” Rather, I tell them what I think intellectual property is — a monopoly enforced by some nanny state.

well Tayssir John Gabbour, this doesn’t appear to be very honest or accurate. the “nanny state” is a pejorative term generally refering to a government (like the one here in the UK or in our other home in Sweden) having excessive control over health and welfare.

the salient difference with intellectual property rights is that they are privately owned; the government is only the mechanism of enforcement.

No king or church ever had such power over human communication. No politburo or agency. This would not be a free society, this would be a permission society

Rob Meyers, like Tayssir John Gabbour, raising the spectre of big bad evil government, or corporations, may be a convenient rhetorical tool, but it obscures the important fact that IP rights arise from the rights of individuals: authors, artists, inventors.

it is neither fair, nor honest, to couch this debate in terms of the rights of individuals versus “the government” when it more accurately should be a debate of individual rights versus individual rights.

poptones raises some interesting points. free culture has decided that DRM is evil without considering that DRM may very well turn out to the enabling mechanism through which the goals of “free culture” are achieved.

in addition to being a tool by which microsoft controls the use of its products (which you will remain free to choose not to use) DRM will also be a mechanism to enable individuals to trade their rights without the intervention of a third party – in the same way cash enables economic transactions to occur between individuals.

the possibilities presented by this new paradigm are enormous. frankly, from our point of view, it is those who oppose DRM who are standing athwart history and progress saying STOP.

you may notice that we have used words like “may very well turn out.” we are not hedging out bets, we are simply saying that to take such a firm position at this state of the game is premature. professor lessig is a smart guy, but he is not a prophet and his vision of the future is not sancrosanct.

]]>
By: Tayssir John Gabbour http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19075 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:00:59 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19075 Incidentally, I think Chuck D lays out the issues very knowledgeably in his intellectual property debate with Metallica’s Lars Ulrich.

With copyright, the nanny state enforces it with police, lawyers, fines and jail. I know Microsoft has a 3-letter organization, I think it’s called the BSA or KGB or something, which cultivates a network of informants to snitch on small businesses so they can raid their offices. Microsoft is the main guy people look to develop DRM; while there’s “good DRM,” they’re not likely to pursue it.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19074 Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:01:41 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19074 This is a technology that even if you have paid for it you would have to ask permission to use, that you would have to ask permission to program, that you would have to ask permission to use your media on, that you would have to ask permission to create anything with, that you would have to ask permission to use to share anything.

The grand flaw here in your point is that you assume it is not already like that. I have related two personal anecdotes that make this case very well: we are already living in that world – and without a robust and universal means of protecting our privacy and securing our data we are defenseless in that realm.

If you want to sell something online that Visa and Mastercard do not wish to subsidize then you are damned. And if you devise a method of going around their walls you are damned further – the USKGB will haul you off to an american prison for violating “money laundering” laws or “terrorism” laws or whatever they can invent (and hope they can invent something, lest you be hauled away to a prison in a place where “human rights” are not recognized at all).

As things are now there is no reasonably reliable and convenient digital currency, nor can there be due to the weaknesses inherent in the present infrastructure. If a ubiquitous cryptographic platform existed that allowed remote attestation of credential to voluntary assignees (and thus far this is exactly the plan) then we have the foundation for creating an online “currency” that can be carried on our persons or stored online in servers of our choosing. That is not a barrier to liberty – it removes one more middleman from the path between you and me in our online transaction. It would allow one person to “wire money” to another in need as instantly and as securely and as privately as handing that person relatively anonymous physical currency.

Can the system still be gamed? Of course, and there will be new rules to learn. Just as you do not hand over your cash to the drug dealer before making sure you’re not buying a bag of oregano, so too you would want to mind your transactions online. But the fact cash can be forged and checks can be forged does not refute their utility as relatively robust means of transacting business – a means presently wholly unavailable to those seeking a living in the online realm.

The “permission culture” already exists and its implications go far, far beyond mere copyright. I know people who are presently dealing with this “permission culture” in their everyday lives as they are attempting to sell original works not “derived” from anyone but their person. But because their “distributor” is a webpage rather than a local vendor subject to local restrictions, the “king” from which they must beg permission is an ignorant tyrant residing on foreign soil. How is that, in any way, “Free culture?”

]]>
By: Tayssir John Gabbour http://www.lessig.org/2005/07/you-have-to-know-who-has-your/#comment-19073 Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:00:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/07/you_have_to_know_who_has_your.html#comment-19073 Andy, in my outreach experience (in totally different subjects), I find it’s refreshing and unusual to be completely honest. I learned that I don’t need to say (for example), “Copyright is BAD BAD BAD.” Rather, I tell them what I think intellectual property is — a monopoly enforced by some nanny state.

We live in an imperfect world and are not often rewarded for doing wonderful things. Most of us buy clothes using sweatshop labor, and drive oil burners. So people should understand copyright is a tool in our arsenal that is unfortunately often necessary to use, in order to lead comfortable lives.

I think when you’re this honest, you gradually earn more trust. And there’s something within people that can’t stand doing “bad things”; knowing the truth gives them a more effective perspective no matter what they choose to do.

There are certainly ways your friend can keep in touch with fans. A discussion group, so they can voluntarily offer feedback and surround her with a potentially fulfilling community. I know authors who do this successfully.

]]>