Comments on: Disclosure Statement (ala Joho) Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: duddits Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:49:09 +0000 The disclosure is interesting in a word soup kind of way. So you get paid to write or speak your mind on matters that you believe in. If for instance, an article is written for a magazine and the magazine restricts it to paid-in-full subscribers What?

Seems to be a little restrictive to research. The magazine owns the content therefore you cannot cite it or post an abstract in a blog. Where does the right to information begin? Is the magazine a gatekeeper or a jailer? This is not a rant on paid subscriptions, it is a disclosure question. It seems to be a contradiction of your NC policy.

Pardon the confusion on my part. I am just trying to balance “free as in beer”, with “free as in not compensated”. Or, maybe I got all of this wrong.

By: three blind mice Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:45:06 +0000 A scion of integrity. What a relief. Not since Jesus Christ or Moses have I met such a man.

that is not cool Jardinero1. play nice.

Which brings me to my point Professor: Who cares why you or anyone else shills? You are still shilling. When I meet a shiller, I listen and I if like I buy. But if I don�t, I slam the door on his face. I don�t care why he shills; it�s neither here nor there. I judge each case on its merits.

that ain’t being a shill. when colin powel goes in front of the UN and reads a load of crap he knows to be crap because that is his job – that is being a shill.

but even then, why should it matter? ideas are what should matter not who or what delivers them, or for what reason. shilling, selling, paid spokesman, bootlicking secretary of state… what should it matter?

indeed, if the cause be just, why should the professor or anyone need anything like an NC policy? does it make you more right about copyright because no one is paying you to say it? or less right if someone is? this is not only absurd; it is demeaning.

if you must analyze the source of an argument to find its merits, then you are not capable of listening. to find fault in the argument of those who are “corrupted” simply because they are “corrupted” is as stupid as finding truth in the argument of those who are “not corrupted” simply because they are “not corrupted”.

By: pb Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:30:28 +0000 What a tedious piece of waffle. Intellectual masturbation at its most self-indulgent.

eg, “Why is money different from flattery, or being a liberal? Good question”

Bzzzt – wrong question! It would have been a lot shorter, and considerably more honest, if Lessig simply said -

“Thanks for the $2m donation to my law department, Google!”

By: Dan Collier Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:59:25 +0000 I thought this is an excellent statement. It raises many important points, like the unconscious influence of “corruption” on what we think and say. This is a good example for many professionals to consider, even if many couldn’t live up to it.

But I have one question on a point I believe you overlooked. How do you handle retirement investments? One would assume you own broad based mutual funds that invest in every sector of the economy. If so, statements about Google Books, for example, may directly impact Google share prices and indirectly effect your investments.

To me, one-time disclosure of such interests seems necessary and sufficient.

By: Jardinero1 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:42:33 +0000 A scion of integrity. What a relief. Not since Jesus Christ or Moses have I met such a man.

I shill insurance and investments for a living. People ask me why I do it. I tell them “for the money, and because I get off on shilling.” They ask me if I believe in the products I sell. I say to them, “that’s not really important, the important question is do you believe in the products I am selling?”

Which brings me to my point Professor: Who cares why you or anyone else shills? You are still shilling. When I meet a shiller, I listen and I if like I buy. But if I don’t, I slam the door on his face. I don’t care why he shills; it’s neither here nor there. I judge each case on its merits.

By: redpop Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:52 +0000 I guess I have a problem with the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”:

The NC principle is about money. It is not about any other influence. Thus, if you’re nice to me, no doubt, I’ll be nice to you. If you’re respectful, I’ll be respectful back. If you flatter me, I doubt I could resist flattering you in return. If you push causes I believe in, I will likely push your work as well. These forms of influence are not within the scope of the NC principle because none of them involve money. I mean the NC principle only to be about removing the influence of money from the work of a professional. I don’t think there’s any need to adopt a rule to remove these other influences.

Modern day bribes are not overt. Whether nepotism is ‘just being nice’ to your friends or not is a matter of spin. People can and do shill for subtle rewards — favoritism or unspoken privileges for example. Nobody takes bribes anymore, only ‘favors’ among ‘friends’.

You seem to imply, for example, that you will, push someone else’s work if they push yours, regardless of whether you would otherwise do so (if it was worth pushing you wouldn’t need quid pro quo). This is similar to the objections people had to Bzzt! — you are creating, and taking advantage of, incentives to shill, to have your opinion on a topic influenced by these incentives.

By: Stuart Ballard Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:54:20 +0000 Doesn’t this in itself open you up to some strange kinds of backwards incentives?

For example, suppose someone sufficiently unscrupulous felt that some position you advocate was materially harmful to their interests, and furthermore that you individually were being successful enough in advocating it that they were actually seeing losses due to it.

Couldn’t they set up a dummy organization specifically targeted at advocating in *favor* of that same position, fund it discreetly, perhaps even hire people who actually do agree with you, and arrange for that dummy organization to make a substantial grant to CC?

And if they did that, wouldn’t you then be obligated to remain silent about that topic, by these principles?

By: Seth Finkelstein Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:51:31 +0000 Sign. That’s not so much a non-disclosure statement, as a mission statement.

Disclosure-writers, please don’t spend a lot of time saying how moral you are. Nobody is ever going to write (well, seriously) “I’m a whore. I’m for sale to the highest bidder. My views are determined by whoever is paying me, and how much. If you want an argument that black is white, just send me some silver. Integrity doesn’t pay the bills”.

Lines like this are useful, because they are statements about objective facts:

“I serve on no commercial boards. I don’t take stock-options to serve on boards or advisory boards.”

Indirect problems are a more complicated issue, I’ll keep this comment short.

By: anon Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:25:06 +0000 Is the list of non-profits on whose boards you serve exhaustive or illustrative?

By: lessig Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:17:57 +0000 Cosbie, not really a NC principle question. Redpop — yes, subject to a de minimus understanding, I mean any compensation. And no changes.

By: redpop Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:56:50 +0000 So you will shill, as long as your not paid in cash? What kinds of gifts or privileges do you accept? You do know that much ‘bribery’ today is done without money right? Free food, gifts, tickets, positions of power, special privileges… etc. are all bribes.

Also, has your position about bzzt! agents changed?

By: Crosbie Fitch Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:52:39 +0000 A an impertinent question remains though.

Would you permit yourself to occupy a position in which your expert knowledge of copyright law could find a student who’d indulged in file-sharing guilty of copyright infringement?

In other words, which would you put first? Upholding the law of copyright or abstaining, defining cultural freedom as a conflict of interest?