On Rudeness and Ad Hominem
Several people (and some mice) wrote in the comments section to a previous post that the Free Culture Movement is not immune to accusations of having bad manners and issuing ad hominem attacks on copyright maximalists. Alas, this is true.
I have lurched into shallow insults at times myself. I'm not proud of it. I witnessed a bit of rhetorical excess on my side at the Future of Music meeting. Several activists who seemed not to understand the forum or that achieving their goals actually demands the support of creative communities used language choices intended to draw lines and alienate the audience of artists.
Back in 1998, when there was no public deliberation over these issues and the copyright cartels got everything they asked for, those of us who raised complaints found no audience, no interest. Now we have an audience. It's time to choose our words and tactics carefully so this movement grows.
While I have been guilty of rudeness and overstatement, Professor Lessig has been nothing but respectful to his formidable opponents. He has reached out to potential allies far beyond his political circle. He has engaged with audiences -- some hostile -- far beyond academia, law, and libraries.
His radical moderation speaks to more than his style, it's his goal. Not long ago we had a moderate, workable copyright system in this country. His position was moderate, reasonable, even conservative just a decade ago.
Thanks to the maximalists (which, is not an insult, especially when maximalists admit to wanting to maximize copyright), it is no longer all that workable. We must save reasonable, humane copyright. It's too important.
Comments (5)
"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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.