DISQUS

The creator must join with its creation, eh?

I think it's a good trend. One question that interests me is whether this is the correct thing to do only now, or whether, in retrospect it might have been the correct thing to do in the past.

Link.

'So what other choice did it have?'

Literally true in the case of protecting trademarks, of course.

When rich villains have need of poor ones, poor ones may make what price they will.

NIN's recent experiment was more pay *if* you want, not pay *what* you want. The pay points were defined, it wasn't a blank box.

They're only offering to defend it if it doensn't break Swedish law (and how is that being anti-authority?). Swedish law not only has criminal hate speech laws but in 2002 a newspaper was found guilty of such after someone posted anonymous messages on an unmoderated forum it ran (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/28/bloody_...). Defined as 'publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation' according to wikipedia. So unless they're going to fight that then on that count at least I wouldn't regard it as a haven for unfettered freedom of speech. Still, good publicity.

Oh I don't think it's anything to do with music tax propaganda like Arrington assumed, but Kaplan's update posts of 'My point is: how can we really debate the value of music or movies or photography, how compensation works, etc when we can’t, since 1989 when the NEA fell apart, figure out how to make art viable as a commercial practice and how to value and support it as a part of the fabric of a functioning society?' and 'How do we value cultural artifacts when there is little to no value of culture itself in the educational systems, public sector and society at large?' seems pretty grounded in older battles as well as parochial (speaking as a Brit, what's this 'we' shit, kemo sabe?). While it's an arguable point, he's not really asking a forward-looking tech/culture intersection question, is he?

That said I'm still sympathetic to his changed/clarified point - I get the same way when, i.e., people talk about education tech without considering underlying educational principles.

I don't think they're proof of anything, but I think they're evidence that financial incentive isn't necessarily a bad motivation for artists and that it can have side benefits as well as produce good art,. So (not that I'm accusing anyone specifically of this, this started with Kaplan asking very general questions after all) dismissing its existence and taking a Romantic view of the artist as beholden only to his muse - now *there's* a modern notion - might mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If society wants diverse artists that means society should provide as diverse incentives as possible.

It's all moot anyway since it turns out what Kaplan was really complaining about was NEA funding which is boring old kulturkampf stuff and certainly not as philosophical as it first appeared to be :-(

Art created by artists who can spend more of their time creating and practising than needing to do other things is always going to be, on average, better. There's no way to get around that. If a society exists where artists can't make a living from their art (leaving aside questions of what being wealthy means for one moment) and have to use up their time on hackwork or unrelated guff to make a living then either that society doesn't value art as highly as one that helps artists live off their art, or it has a remarkably high number of gifted trustafarians and other aristocrats.

Off the top of my head, great artists motivated by making money - and not just a small sinecure of a living either - include Pope, Dickens and Scott. And for Pope especially financial independence meant intellectual independence.

I was going to title this post “Duncan Riley: Lessons in how to be an asshole,” but then I thought that would bring me down to the same level as Duncan...”

Really, I don't think you can claim kudos points for not descending to the level of the playground if you also write what you would have written if you weren't so civilised.

A green paper is a draft consultation document, not a draft bill, although it may be in the form of a proposal. I'm not saying they're not dumb enough to do this, but the stage at which the ISPs and everyone else point out that it's a daft idea is after they've got the green paper and during the consultation phase. There's still more stages after that before it gets near legislation.

This isn't really relevant, but stanch and staunch are variants, not completely different words for different meanings. American Heritage says 'Staunch is more common than stanch as the spelling of the adjective. Stanch is more common than staunch as the spelling of the verb.'

I love his description of a distraught Richard Stallman close to tears. Explains a lot, really, in that Stallman obviously was driven crazy-mad with grief and has been out for revenge to make sure his heart isn't broken again, like a friend who becomes misogynist because of one bad breakup. Poor little guy.

Oh, and Jaron Lanier looks like this - http://tinyurl.com/2wuzcv - in real life but he puts on the freak suit for gigs because he knows the freetards and wikians wouldn't even listen to him criticise if they thought he wore a tie and shoes on a regular basis. But I realise you, FSJ, already know this and are just playing along to make me look a fool yadda yadda yadda... schtick's getting a bit old, tbh.

"Dismantling of big government" sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded – like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being "broken" are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based – the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need.

He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

All real quotes from the world's top intellectual. Ron Paul - the fringe candiate that even Noam Chomsky thinks is a loon.