4 ms·

I'm glad he went I guess, but I think Cory Doctorow had the right idea. All this will serve to accomplish is give the summit an air of legitimacy and they'll ju

I'm glad he went I guess, but I think Cory Doctorow had the right idea. All this will serve to accomplish is give the summit an air of legitimacy and they'll just make the invite list more exclusive next time. Meanwhile none of these pig-fuckers are interested their arguments being challenged on their merits. They know what they are about, and it is decidedly not the best interests of society, or even creative expression. "Speech has to be free but movies cost money." I doubt he even meant this to be a double entendre. He is literally trying to be reasonable by suggesting that people should not have to pay blood money to 20th Century Fox in order to post something to their blog. He is seriously trying to illustrate benevolence here. So I doubt that trying to reason with these people serves a purpose.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
> I think Cory Doctorow had the right idea. All this will serve to accomplish is give the summit an air of legitimacy[…] I think this is debatable. It depends on how the summit is eventually presented by mainstream media. If they say there's EFF co-founder, and the panel concluded that we should lock this IP leak machine that is the Internet, then Cory and you are right. But I've already heard news on the radio (France culture, in France) which talked a good deal about freedom, and let speak a spokesman from LQDN. So there's a good chance that the actual report from a good deal of the mainstream media is that the industries said one thing, and the EFF said another. They may even report that the EFF said the e-G8 is something the EFF doesn't approve of. In that case, Cory and you would be mistaken. In the end, however we probably need both. Someone who won't go to avoid legitimizing this farce, and another one who go take the heat to secure a minimum media coverage for dissent.
Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
Is it a form of censorship to not go to a powerful forum about censorship and give your ideas against censorship? If all those against, lets say "censorship", are silent when a major debate is being heard on it, then who do you think will get all the PR, and win in the end? I think for Cory it is a privilege that he was invited and it would have been a privilege to take part in the debate. It is an important debate, whatever their motives may be. We are at a turning point, and all voices ought to be heard, lest we, our society, makes an irrational decision because of the silence of some. Speak louder. That is, after all, what needs to be protected.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  I am torn on that because I'm not sure that choosing not to attend was a wise decision. But anyone who didn't back the interests of mass media going into that forum had to know that the deck was stacked against them. That is, that they would be regarded as a sideshow - a token representative from outside the sphere of consensus. That's all John Barlow is here. Let's have EFF put together a similar event and see how many representatives from the copyright regime show up. Let's see if they get Jim Gianopulos from 20th Century Fox. Let's not pretend this entire conference was anything other than a PR stunt. These are the same assholes behind ACTA.
edanm 15y ago
"Meanwhile none of these pig-fuckers are interested their arguments being challenged on their merits." I love how you talk about challenging people on their merits, right after calling them "pig-fuckers". "They know what they are about, and it is decidedly not the best interests of society, or even creative expression." I'm sure they're after profit first and foremost (like many people), but that doesn't mean what they're advocating isn't in the best interests of society as well. Why not try making an actual argument instead of name calling and saying that it's not use reasoning with them?
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  What argument? Let them put forward a justification for what they propose, rather than a naked power play in their own self interest. Let them participate in an actual forum instead of this contrived horseshit. Then they'll hear all the arguments they can stand.

loup-vaillant 15y ago

> I think Cory Doctorow had the right idea. All this will serve to accomplish is give the summit an air of legitimacy[…] I think this is debatable. It depends on how the summit is eventually presented by mainstream media. If they say there's EFF co-founder, and the panel concluded that we should lock this IP leak machine that is the Internet, then Cory and you are right. But I've already heard news on the radio (France culture, in France) which talked a good deal about freedom, and let speak a spokesman from LQDN. So there's a good chance that the actual report from a good deal of the mainstream media is that the industries said one thing, and the EFF said another. They may even report that the EFF said the e-G8 is something the EFF doesn't approve of. In that case, Cory and you would be mistaken. In the end, however we probably need both. Someone who won't go to avoid legitimizing this farce, and another one who go take the heat to secure a minimum media coverage for dissent.

Andrew_Quentin 15y ago

Is it a form of censorship to not go to a powerful forum about censorship and give your ideas against censorship? If all those against, lets say "censorship", are silent when a major debate is being heard on it, then who do you think will get all the PR, and win in the end? I think for Cory it is a privilege that he was invited and it would have been a privilege to take part in the debate. It is an important debate, whatever their motives may be. We are at a turning point, and all voices ought to be heard, lest we, our society, makes an irrational decision because of the silence of some. Speak louder. That is, after all, what needs to be protected.

bluedanieru 15y ago
I am torn on that because I'm not sure that choosing not to attend was a wise decision. But anyone who didn't back the interests of mass media going into that forum had to know that the deck was stacked against them. That is, that they would be regarded as a sideshow - a token representative from outside the sphere of consensus. That's all John Barlow is here. Let's have EFF put together a similar event and see how many representatives from the copyright regime show up. Let's see if they get Jim Gianopulos from 20th Century Fox. Let's not pretend this entire conference was anything other than a PR stunt. These are the same assholes behind ACTA.

edanm 15y ago

"Meanwhile none of these pig-fuckers are interested their arguments being challenged on their merits." I love how you talk about challenging people on their merits, right after calling them "pig-fuckers". "They know what they are about, and it is decidedly not the best interests of society, or even creative expression." I'm sure they're after profit first and foremost (like many people), but that doesn't mean what they're advocating isn't in the best interests of society as well. Why not try making an actual argument instead of name calling and saying that it's not use reasoning with them?

bluedanieru 15y ago
What argument? Let them put forward a justification for what they propose, rather than a naked power play in their own self interest. Let them participate in an actual forum instead of this contrived horseshit. Then they'll hear all the arguments they can stand.