Rips off Jay Maisel and gets caught but doesn't think he did anything wrong....

[Marko]

Andy's blog states that both sets of lawyers "reviewed" his account, not "approved".
There is nothing to indicate if the account was complete or even accurate. There may or may not have been prior communication between the two, and if there was you do not know how either Andy or Jay behaved. There is a quite a bit that we just do not know.

Nobody mentioned anything about the account being complete, but the fact that both sets of lawyers reviewed it prior to publishing pretty much guarantees that the account was not inaccurate.

(Gotta love those double negations - as repulsive as they may be, they sure have their uses. Just like lawyers... ).

So at the end of day you have made your "opinion" based on a bunch of assumptions, and mostly based on what Jay's adversary chose to post on his blog (totally unbiased and complete information of course). With the lack of complete and impartial information, it is impossible for nuance to even enter the equation, yet based on what you have written here, were all too happy to go for the throat against Jay.

Yes, there is quite a bit that none of us knows about this, that's why I made it clear that it was just my impression and my opinion. Everybody else seems to be much more certain in their own assumptions.

As for going for the throat, just go back and re-read the qualifications thrown around. In my vocabulary, the terms "thief", "perp", "whining hipster", "disgrace", "astounding", etc. have no place in the same book as the word "nuance", much less in the same sentence.

BTW, I mentioned nuance, or the seeming lack of, in the context of Maisel's enforcement actions. I know better than use that term in the context of this, or any other Internet forum.

Marko

P.S. What's up with the silly quotation marks game? Do you guys really think that they will somehow make my opinion less valid then yours? Don't you have better "arguments", maybe even some real ones?

[cyrus]

Also, I agree that the rights owner needs to actively assert those rights, but there are quite a few steps that could be taken before filing an actual lawsuit. I like your qualification of "if necessary". We as a society seem to have lost any sense of nuance and seem all to happy to just go for the throat.
.

I for one don't know if this was tried or not, so I can't comment. I would expect a "cease and desist" letter to be issued first, before litigation is started. That's the usual course of things.

[Jay DeFehr]

Again, I find it impossible for me to contemplate that those steps were not taken. The end point of those steps is contrition on the part of the infringer. Without that contrition, the rights have not been pursued sufficiently to defend them in the future. Even in a settlement where there was no fault acknowledged, there was a judgment, and that judgment was public enough to provide that precedent in case of future infringements.

And to other points, yes, there are business models that involve giving stuff away. It's not just Facebook and it is not unique to the digital age--many local newspapers are free to readers (and have been for decades, if not centuries) because of what they charge to advertisers--but those are business models, not non-business models. Those business owners adopted those models for purely commercial reasons, and those models are identical to Google, etc. Just because the free rags that depend on advertising are successful in their own way doesn't mean that it is somehow wrong for the big dailies to charge their readers. Nor does it mean that the free rags are somehow morally elevated above those that are not free.

There are some in the open-source community that do indeed adopt a software-commune economic model, but I agree with Frank that many of them can afford to do so because of the wealth they earned (and in many cases still earn) the old-fashioned capitalistic way. Even music groups that give away their MP3 files expect those files to bring in audiences for live performances, or to build support for radio airtime that will bring them royalties through ASCAP.

I don't agree with Frank that those who give photography away are morally obligated not to in support of those who intend to make money from photography. If there is value in photography worthy of charging for it, then those who charge are obligated to provide that value. It may be as simple as being able to produce enough work to satisfy the demand, or it may be that one who is successful commercially has found a way to uniquely fill a need. It is always challenging to be successful in an activity that is so fun to do that people are willing to do it without compensation.

I was reminded recently that I am a mere weekend hobbyist who does not display the skill obtained by someone who has done commercial work for 34 years, as if that had ever been in question. That's fine with me--I already have a job.

Rick "who has done many weddings for free for those who had to choose between that and having no competent photographs" Denney

Hi Rick,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your comparison of free newspapers to google. It seems to me you think I believe everything should be free, which is not the case. I responded to Frank's claim that the only work done well is paid work, and the only kind of value worth considering is financial. I could cite hundreds of examples in which volunteer work has created real value, but Wikipedia is convenient because it's so well known, and it's hard to ascribe some ulterior financial motive to its contributors. Frank's suggestion that the contributors to Linux act selfishly for financial gain is typical coming from someone who is blind to intrinsic value; call it theory induced blindness. Someone could make a similar claim about Frank's participation in this forum; that he participates to gain exposure for his photography, and thereby increase his profit from it, but even Frank knows that if it's true, it's only partially true. People are generous, and like to share, and given the opportunity, we will. People also like to solve problems and to collaborate, and the rewards derived from contributing to a group effort can be largely intrinsic. It has been shown that offering extrinsic (financial) rewards for work done largely for intrinsic ones, can create a "crowding out" effect, in which the participant feels less rewarded instead of more.

Regarding my claim that intellectual property is inherently communistic, by that I mean that the barriers to sharing are low and largely artificial. The tragedy of the commons doesn't apply to intellectual property the way it does to real property, because intellectual property, like a digital file, can be shared without loss to the sharer. Culture is largely based on the communal nature of intellectual property. Before written language existed, knowledge was transmitted orally, from speaker to listener, or listeners. It cost the speaker no more to speak to a dozen listeners than it did to speak to just one, and by speaking to multiple listeners communal value was created, because each of the listeners could go on to become a speaker, and in this way knowledge was disseminated, and culture evolved. Privatization of intellectual property required technology, a market, and a legal system, but keeping intellectual property private is a constant struggle against the natural order.

It is always challenging to be successful in an activity that is so fun to do that people are willing to do it without compensation.

The above is the essence of my point, but I would argue that the people who participate in these activities are compensated intrinsically. That industries have been created to convert intrinsic value to extrinsic value is an accident of history, based on limitations on sharing, and this is the essence of the digital revolution. It's no coincidence that the same artificial mechanisms employed to privatize intellectual property have been employed to privatize digital content, because it's the same problem, but with important differences. Before the digital age, there were media producers and media consumers, broadcasters and audience, publishers and readers, and the means of production was controlled by one group (media) for consumption by a larger group (audience). The means of production was expensive and required professionals to operate, and broadcast and distribution were expensive. These barriers to participation kept the two groups separate and allowed the media to profit, and more importantly, to control media content.

The digital revolution has put the means of production in the hands of the "group formerly known as the audience", and erased the distinctions between the media producers and the audience/consumers, and in so doing has erased an accident of history. Media professionals of any kind, and those who depend for their existence on the control of media content should consider this fact very carefully. To be sure, there are still dinosaurs walking among us, like Maisel, who cling to that accident of history, and some slightly more evolved hybrids, like Andy, who struggle to adapt that accident of history to the digital age, but both will either adapt or be doomed to extinction in the near future.

[Mike Anderson]

Hi Rick,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your comparison of free newspapers to google...

I think it's a good analogy. Most of the free software and services available aren't produced for altruistic reasons, it's a business strategy. I'll bet even apache.org is largely corporate supported because it's in the corporations' strategic interest.

But you're right in that Wikipedia is largely altruisitic - it is a charity, there are many charities, and charities are good. A level of altruism is built into our species, it's evident all over the place, and right here in this forum.

...Mike

[Greg Miller]

You quoted: Again, both sets of lawyers approved Andy's account of it.
Andy's actual statement (taken from his blog): Again, both sets of lawyers reviewed Andy's account of it.

There is a huge difference between "approved" and "reviewed".

So as for those "silly quotations marks", it indicates that I am quoting you verbatim. It is common practice. Nothing to do with silly games. In this specific case it was used to correct your quote:

But I think you knew this about the quotations marks, since you have used them yourself many times in this thread.

(Gotta love people that use the same tactics that they complain about when other people use them. In this thread alone there has been complaining about quotations, assumptions, guesses, pejoratives, (sic), missing nuances, personal attacks)


My bigger point all along has been that there is more that we do not know than we do now. In connecting the dots, while there may be a couple of dots that lead to Jay being as terrible as the opinion you have for him. But there are many more dots, and dots that are not know to us, that can lead to a very different opinion of Jay.

Just a few things we do not know:
. What relationship, if any, existed between Andy and Jay prior to the album cover incident
. What communication happened between Jay and Andy prior to the demand letter form Jay
. How did Andy respond to any communication, and what was the time of it.
. What was discussed during the months of negotiation after the demand letter (if Jay was out to screw Andy, would he have bother to negotiate at all, much less for months?)
. It would be common practice for any business to contact their attorney prior to contacting someone perceived to be an adversary (possible copyright infringer). Is it possible that the attorneys advised against any other steps (and the consequences of doing so) that what we know and don't know ocurred. Would it be foolish for Jay to go against such advise if it happened?
. What were the objectives of the legal action. Was it money, was it a principle a point, was it sticking to Andy, was any number of things that are possible.
. What previous experience (if any) did Jay have with copyright infringers and how antagonistic were those events? How could those flavor this situation.
What else was going on in Jay's life at the time that may have affected his response. Was his prostate acting up, did his cousin just get killed by a drunk driver?
. What is Jay's perspective of the whole affair. We do not know. Perhaps he would tell us great things about Andy. Or perhaps he would have some not so nice things to say.

What we do know:
. Andy has no-one but himself to blame for putting himself into the position to be sued. He has no-one else to blame for that.

You are entitled to your opinion, but in effect what you are doing is trying Jay with very little information, and much of that little information coming from the alleged victim. Perhaps your opinion is accurate. I have always felt that it was possible, but given the lack of information and given that the biggest source of information could be considered biased (at a minimum in terms of omission of information, if not tone) then there is plenty of room to consider other valid opinions. So the attacks against Jay, which there were plenty, were out of line.

But that is just my opinion.


I mentioned the nuance remark, because I found it ironic that you accuse the internet fora for not being aware of the huge continuum of nuances that exist in the world, yet in this case the nuances are not even know because the larger facts are not known. Yet you chose to ignore all of that and strongly state an opinion which paints a very derogatory picture of a man, that is hardly provable based on known facts, let alone the nuances of those facts, and seem to put little credence on the other possibilities that are equally supportable given the dearth of information.

[Jay DeFehr]

I agree that in some ways google is like advertiser supported newspapers, but that's not very interesting. What's interesting is that Linux can compete with Microsoft. Even if everyone who ever contributed to Linux did so for selfish, financial reasons, which is a fairly wild assumption to make, the fact remains that there is no payroll, no contracts, no corporate structure, in short, no institution. There are no recruiters, or managers, and no demands of any kind placed on the contributors, and no extrinsic rewards promised or given. There is absolutely no evidence that contributing to Linux, or even using it provides an extrinsic advantage over using Windows, yet millions of people do contribute to and use Linux, even when doing so requires them to make certain sacrifices to convenience, or put another way, is more expensive. The business strategy explanation is not very persuasive.

Is Wikipedia a charity? It does solicit and accept donations, but that's where its similarity to traditional charities ends. One cannot write off donations to Wikipedia, for example. Traditional charities consist of one group raising money to benefit another group, so beneficiaries of a charity are typically not also contributors to it. But that's exactly the case with Wikipedia; the contributors and beneficiaries are the same group, and that makes it a very special case.

I know some people have a hard time understanding an economy based on intrinsic value, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

[rdenney]

Jay, my point was that one does not need to dig down for "intrinsic" value (and I'm using quotes merely because it's your word) to justify gratis business models. And my point was also that such business models are not new.

People have all sorts of reasons for doing things. If those things cost money, then somebody must pay for it. This is true irrespective of economic model.

Rick "succinct when using an iPhone" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

I agree that in some ways google is like advertiser supported newspapers, but that's not very interesting. What's interesting is that Linux can compete with Microsoft. Even if everyone who ever contributed to Linux did so for selfish, financial reasons, which is a fairly wild assumption to make, the fact remains that there is no payroll, no contracts, no corporate structure, in short, no institution. There are no recruiters, or managers, and no demands of any kind placed on the contributors, and no extrinsic rewards promised or given. There is absolutely no evidence that contributing to Linux, or even using it provides an extrinsic advantage over using Windows, yet millions of people do contribute to and use Linux, even when doing so requires them to make certain sacrifices to convenience, or put another way, is more expensive. The business strategy explanation is not very persuasive.

Many, many programmers have been paid big bucks to contribute to Linux. Lots of corporate money has gone into Linux. Many people who contributed were not paid, but it's hardly an all volunteer effort.

Don't get me wrong: free/opensource/copyleft is a great, almost magical force. But just because the end product is free doesn't mean it's completely (or even mostly) the result of unpaid altruism.

...Mike

[Kirk Keyes]

One cannot write off donations to Wikipedia, for example.

The following is from http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/...y_of_donations

"Donations are tax-deductible in the U.S.

"The Wikimedia Foundation Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, is registered as a charitable organization with the State of Florida's Division of Consumer Services, a division of the State of Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and may lawfully solicit donations under Florida law. The Foundation has been granted official tax exempt status (section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) from the United States Internal Revenue Service. Tax-exempt status was granted in April 2005 and is retroactive back to the date of creation of the Foundation: June 20, 2003. You may deduct donations from your federally-taxable income. Please contact a tax professional for the details of deducting such a donation."

[rdenney]

Don't get me wrong: free/opensource/copyleft is a great, almost magical force. But just because the end product is free doesn't mean it's completely (or even mostly) the result of unpaid altruism.

Or that it is sustainable without some revenue stream feeding it, even if it's not visible. I wonder how many of those volunteer efforts occurred on company time.

Rick "who does many things just because they need to be done" Denney