Comments on: A Letter to the #Occup(iers): The Principle of Non-Contradiction Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: mihandesigner Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:57:00 +0000 طراحی سایت

By: طراحی سایت Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:41:00 +0000 so Helpful . Fortunate me I discovered your web site…thanks

طراحی سایت

By: Joe Buck Thu, 06 May 2004 01:54:22 +0000 Speaking of avoiding language that causes offense, be careful with the use of “creative communities” to describe only those whose creations are artistic and literary, as opposed to technical. Besides the fact that a lot of geeks resent it, it builds unnecessary walls. Many on Jack Valenti’s side of the divide treasure their creative freedom and fight like dogs against any who would block it. They would never dream of permitting a system in which every film had to be approved by the state, but they are advocating a system in which every program has to be approved by the state, because a lot of them think that all programs come either from faceless corporations like Microsoft or from criminal vandals.

We software creators need to insist that “creative” applies to us.

By: Fuzzy Wed, 05 May 2004 21:03:56 +0000 Siva writes, “Back in 1998, when … the copyright cartels got everything they asked for….”.

1998 was a bad year – the 1998 DMCA, the 1998 CTEA.

But as far as I can tell, the copyright cartels are still getting everything they ask for. Witness the continued attempts to add copy protection to CDs, the growing use of digital rights management software (Apple iTunes; Microsoft Janus), the DirectTV ‘guilty until proven innocent’ smart card suits, the 2002 loss in MPAA v. Corley, the 2003 loss in Eldred v Ashcroft, the 2003 FCC broadcast flag.

By: Fuzzy Wed, 05 May 2004 20:29:07 +0000 Rob writes, “anything said in opposition is by definition divisive”.

You bring up an interesting idea, but I think you may have overlooked some options. There are ways of pointing out alternate viewpoints that, when considered with an existing statement, can help to bring about change.

I think that emotion is a good initial motivator that can help propel someone’s intellect to take action.

I think action in many cases, whatever the motive, is likely to appeal to people.

By: Rob Wed, 05 May 2004 18:10:40 +0000 I like to think the movement will grow if its principles are seen as worthy of support regardless of the strident mudslinging from the opposition. However, it is increasingly evident to me that the majority of Americans are more impressed with one-liners and zingers than with reasoned arguments and detailed debates. You score more points by saying “lessig’s an idiot” than you do with saying “lessig is mistaken”. It’s the world of the WWF, Jerry Springer and Average Joe Millionaire Survivor, and the radical conservatives have mastered playing by its rules.

With regards to being divisive…anything said in opposition is by definition divisive. It’s just a question of how you go about being divisive, appealing to emotion or appealing to reason or some blending of the two, that determines whether people will think of you as an intellectual or as a crackpot. On this blog I hope we will at least lean towards the intellectual over the emotional.

By: Seth Finkelstein Wed, 05 May 2004 12:42:34 +0000 “It’s time to choose our words and tactics carefully so this movement grows.”

Ehhh … Is there anyone reading here who, *themselves*, is going to say:

“Before, I thought the right tactic was to expose the copyrapist corpscum for what they are, but now I am enlightened and realize it is a matter of all good men and women reasoning together”?

I’d be happy if we could achieve not killing OURSELVES in liberal/radical infighting, much less having everyone play nice :-)