3 ms·

That's an example of a long opinion piece with no point. Yes, Matt thinks that Copyright is actually useful, but what's your point? What's the action you want m

That's an example of a long opinion piece with no point. Yes, Matt thinks that Copyright is actually useful, but what's your point? What's the action you want me to take? Why did I just read that - I know some people think copyright is okay, and some think that it's not okay, I did not have to read a long article with absolutely no new conclusions or any clear purpose. You basically took a two sentence argument and stretched it to waste 3 minutes of my time.

zasz 18y ago
I thought it had a lot of points. Defending the usefulness of copyright is a rare position on the internet, and he does give some actual reasons as to why copyright is useful (which is why his article is pointful rather than pointless)--it protects movies and books and other forms of creative content that are difficult to produce. He also takes some common defenses of copyright infringement (though he seems to reconstruct a couple as strawmen) and debunks them.
- maxklein 18y ago
  Defending copyright is not a rare opinion in my world. The opinions he talks about there are like the most basic opinions that anyone trying to defend copyright would come up with. Nothing new at all. It's as if he suddenly decided to think contrarian, then quickly wrote down the first thoughts he could think of. I used to work in the development division of a very major recording company. Reading his article would be like a competent C++ programmer reading an article about why classes are useful - sure, the article may be correct, but it's pointless reading, except for people who have never even entertained that thought.
  - zasz 18y ago
    Then the problem is not that it was pointless, but that it was not novel. The article in question for your C++ programmer has a point; the programmer just doesn't care. As a college student, defending copyright is rare in MY world, and people look at me funny when I tell them I buy CDs, and my brother laughs at me when I say I'm going to support Obsidian by buying their next game full price as soon as it comes out. I liked Matt's article; it was pretty basic analysis, but it was reasonable.
mattmaroon 18y ago
It's a blog sir.
- maxklein 18y ago
  Yo Matt, there's something I wanted to mention to you: I don't like your internet personality. I'm sure you're a very nice guy in person, but the way you brand yourself on the internet may not be giving quite the right impression you want to give. When I go on your site, your picture already gives an arrogant impression. Then your long articles are always perfect, not personal and discussing some issues in detail. Your internet personality comes across as very cold and somewhat arrogant, very little emotion, but without really conveying a strong sense of competence (which is what cold blogs are supposed to do). So unless the effect I described is actually part of your personal branding strategy, you may want to rethink it. Because your brand has so many strong factors (name, picture, writings), that people who meet you will already be influenced by your projection of yourself, and this will color their perception of you. All I'm saying is this: brand yourself a little bit warmer. People will like the impression better.
  - dbrush 18y ago
    "Your internet personality comes across as very cold and somewhat arrogant, very little emotion, but without really conveying a strong sense of competence" So does your's. I've read four or five of your comments on this item only to find that you believe you respresent a vast majority of those reading this article. It's more likely that you don't, as is evidenced by the quite engaging discussions this site is historically known for; discussions being engaging precisely because people don't agree by default. Perhaps instead of steering the conversation you should take part in it. For instance, you could render your opinions about copyright law instead of your opinions about people that write about copyright law.
    - maxklein 18y ago
      I know that mine does. It's part of my freedom to say what I want philosophy. You are right, I should probably have contributed to the actual article content or kept my mouth shut, but its the Author or his persona that makes me want to reply to this in a negative manner.

zasz 18y ago

I thought it had a lot of points. Defending the usefulness of copyright is a rare position on the internet, and he does give some actual reasons as to why copyright is useful (which is why his article is pointful rather than pointless)--it protects movies and books and other forms of creative content that are difficult to produce. He also takes some common defenses of copyright infringement (though he seems to reconstruct a couple as strawmen) and debunks them.

maxklein 18y ago
Defending copyright is not a rare opinion in my world. The opinions he talks about there are like the most basic opinions that anyone trying to defend copyright would come up with. Nothing new at all. It's as if he suddenly decided to think contrarian, then quickly wrote down the first thoughts he could think of. I used to work in the development division of a very major recording company. Reading his article would be like a competent C++ programmer reading an article about why classes are useful - sure, the article may be correct, but it's pointless reading, except for people who have never even entertained that thought.
- zasz 18y ago
  Then the problem is not that it was pointless, but that it was not novel. The article in question for your C++ programmer has a point; the programmer just doesn't care. As a college student, defending copyright is rare in MY world, and people look at me funny when I tell them I buy CDs, and my brother laughs at me when I say I'm going to support Obsidian by buying their next game full price as soon as it comes out. I liked Matt's article; it was pretty basic analysis, but it was reasonable.

mattmaroon 18y ago

It's a blog sir.

maxklein 18y ago
Yo Matt, there's something I wanted to mention to you: I don't like your internet personality. I'm sure you're a very nice guy in person, but the way you brand yourself on the internet may not be giving quite the right impression you want to give. When I go on your site, your picture already gives an arrogant impression. Then your long articles are always perfect, not personal and discussing some issues in detail. Your internet personality comes across as very cold and somewhat arrogant, very little emotion, but without really conveying a strong sense of competence (which is what cold blogs are supposed to do). So unless the effect I described is actually part of your personal branding strategy, you may want to rethink it. Because your brand has so many strong factors (name, picture, writings), that people who meet you will already be influenced by your projection of yourself, and this will color their perception of you. All I'm saying is this: brand yourself a little bit warmer. People will like the impression better.
- dbrush 18y ago
  "Your internet personality comes across as very cold and somewhat arrogant, very little emotion, but without really conveying a strong sense of competence" So does your's. I've read four or five of your comments on this item only to find that you believe you respresent a vast majority of those reading this article. It's more likely that you don't, as is evidenced by the quite engaging discussions this site is historically known for; discussions being engaging precisely because people don't agree by default. Perhaps instead of steering the conversation you should take part in it. For instance, you could render your opinions about copyright law instead of your opinions about people that write about copyright law.
  - maxklein 18y ago
    I know that mine does. It's part of my freedom to say what I want philosophy. You are right, I should probably have contributed to the actual article content or kept my mouth shut, but its the Author or his persona that makes me want to reply to this in a negative manner.