Reason.tv video - Too Much Copyright

Discuss

39 Responses to “Reason.tv video - Too Much Copyright”

  1. MrEricSir says:

    Reason has about as much credibility as The Onion.  Maybe less.

    • aikimoe says:

      I guess that’s easier than considering the arguments themselves.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Have you somehow failed to notice how many Onion articles have ended up being entirely and completely factual after a couple of years?

    • zartan says:

      What bearing does “credibility” have on hosting a debate between two third parties anyway?

      • MrEricSir says:

         Have you ever watched Fox News?  Then you already know the answer to that.

      • wildemar says:

        Well, they *did* select the third parties in question, and you will always find a talking head that supports your view. So credibility in this case means trust in Reason TV to select the people and present their statements in a credible (truthful) manner.

    • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

      It’s a shame you are so closed minded.

      • MrEricSir says:

        Do you listen to every conspiracy theorist who wants to preach their crazy ideas to you?  If not, then why are you criticizing me for doing the same?

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Okay, we’ve reached our meta-commentary quota for this issue. Stop, please.

        • blissfulight says:

          No, which is why everyone has stopped listening to you.  

        • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

          MrEricSir, point out the parts of this video where Reason is telling lies.

          • MrEricSir says:

            How about you point out the part where I said they lied?

          • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

            If you say something is not credible, it means it’s not to be believed. What is don’t you believe believe about this video? You have yet to provide any specific examples to support your charges, so it’s hard to take you seriously. I’m feeling foolish engaging with you!

    • Roman Berry says:

       Your reply is a great illustration of fallacy. You’re not rebutting the arguments or even addressing them at all. You’re not even trying. You merely state that the source isn’t credible and think that should stand on its own. It doesn’t stand. No legs.

      • MrEricSir says:

         So you read every single link on WorldNetDaily or Glenn Beck’s website? Why give the slightest thought to intellectual garbage?  Do you have no bullshit filter?

        If so, why do you continue clicking on these links?

    • soodonim says:

      “Credibility” and credentials are over-rated. Read their words and use your brain.

      Trust me, I’m a B.F.D.

  2. zartan says:

    Damn I was hoping to make it in before someone said “Koch”.

    Reason haters would do well to actually peruse an issue. You might be surprised.

    • MrEricSir says:

      Hey, exactly the same argument the birthers and truthers used!  Do you guys buy your talking points in bulk?

      • Rindan says:

        Relax dude.  Reason is most certainly a libertarian organization.  They do come at the world with their own perspective.  If your head explodes if you read libertarian arguments you probably should avoid Reason.

        That said, being libertarians, they are also civil libertarians.  Civil libertarians fight to end prohibition, reduce the boot heel of the police state, promote freedom of expression, end wars, and all sorts of fun and wonderful stuff.  They do it much better and far more consistently than any other political grouping.  Its a shame that your dislike of their economics blinds you to anything good they have to offer, especially when I am almost certain you slam blinders over your face with much more enthusiasm when your political party of choice takes a big steaming shit on civil liberty.

        Further, did you even listen to the video before your head exploded?  What exactly did you find so objectionable?  Or did you just lose your mind when  you saw the messenger?

    • C W says:

      I do, and because of that I rarely am.

  3. reasonable says:

    It’s a strange perspective. Listen to the language, it’s about the GOVT and regulatory capture. It’s such a weird libertarian twist against something that you’d think that libertarians would fully support: the extension of property to intellectual property.

    I’m not sure I understand what libertarians have against this equivalence, but this video made it clear, they don’t want the govt involved.

    This is probably one of the most reasonable things that REASON has produced. I wish they wouldn’t lay claim to the word reason because much of their other content is definitely unreasonable to many.

  4. Brainspore says:

    This disconnect between the public’s view of copyright and fair use and what should and should not be prosecuted, versus the ‘copyright maximist’ view of the law, is our generation’s Prohibition

    I thought our generation’s Prohibition was the War on (some) Drugs. It’s a much more direct analogy, all and all. Especially with the organized crime and whatnot.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      Thanks for stealing my comment, man.  Kidding.

      The War on Some Drugs *is* the prohabition of our generation.  You’d think libitarians would be onto that point like flies on shit.

  5. Ben Huh on copyright? Interesting.

  6. quitterjunior says:

    I want to work for a think tank.  I find elaborate ex post facto justifications for my opinions and prejudices all the time in these here comment threads, on the house.  It would be sweet to get paid for it.  I’m not saying MrEricSir is being “reasonable” (because apparently that might violate some kind of trademark).  But given the intentionally vague titles of such organizations, I do think it plays into their misleading aw-shucks-when-you-put-it-that-way tactics for BB to present Reason as in any way grass roots or agenda-less.  Did you know the National American Association for America is a NAMBLA subsidiary?  Or that Internet.com is actually run by the Amish? True story.  I’m not denying a friend of a friend showed a friend this video. But Old Spice going viral didn’t change the fact that it was a commercial.  Also, it’s a canny – but ugly – play to ‘invite’ a panel of three with two in your corner.  If I try to argue that Reason intentionally chose a dolt for the odd man out, they’d say, “but he’s the a ‘representative’”  If I try to argue it’s numerically unfair, they’d say, “that’s because so few people agree with him.”  Airtight.  

  7. Jonathan Roberts says:

    I thought that anti copyright ad already was a copyright violation? Incidentally, I’d be willing to bet playing a video and merely placing a sign over it wouldn’t change its status from ‘copyright violation’ to ‘totally OK’.

  8. avraamov says:

    ‘according to the constitution…’. after he said those words, my brain switched off. perhaps the No.1 most intractable issue on the whole of this debate is how a global communications medium (or the english language sector of it) is entirely controlled by US law. a good example of this is the British teenager currently fighting extradition for copyright violations –  essentially providing links to pirated films. lived in the UK his whole life, but the server he made the mistake of allowing to host his site is in the US.

    another reason why this shit in its current form needs to be killed 

    • CaptainPedge says:

      Actually, as I understand it, his server was hosted somewhere in mainland Europe but because the site was usable in the US they are wanting to have him tried there…

  9. Cory Doctorow says:

    It’s a good video, but I was a little disappointed to see them repeat the shibboleth that Google and Wikipedia led the charge to shut down SOPA. In reality, there was a real, grassroots uprising against SOPA, and this allowed the people within Google and Wikimedia to convince their organizations to participate in the popular movement. You’d think Reason (of all organizations) would be able to countenance the idea that people — not big companies or prominent charities — are able to instigate change.

    • Brainspore says:

      You’d think Reason (of all organizations) would be able to countenance the idea that people — not big companies or prominent charities — are able to instigate change.

      Didn’t you get the memo? Corporations ARE people.

  10. AirPillo says:

    The description makes it sound like Huh was speaking in support of tougher copyright…

  11. Andrew Eisenberg says:

    In general, I am not a big fan of Reason magazine and what it stands for, but on the issue of copyright, the magazine has been surprisingly forward thinking

Leave a Reply