Comments on: Reason #523 to oppose the DMCA

By: sdfad

sdfad — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 05:26:36 +0000

By: David Weinberger

David Weinberger — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:46:38 +0000

I meant it more as a dorky joke than as anything chic. But, at least now someone has called me chic. Thanks, Seth! (And, no, I have zero expectation I’ll be sued for this post.)

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:54:01 +0000

Actually, I’d say the article is about manipulating speech. It’s sort of the “evil twin” version of Cluetrain.

Please note though, in terms of the posturing, that you really aren’t saying anything which would provoke that sort of reaction. The radical chic can be a little bit irritating to activists who really do have to worry about frivolous lawsuits.

By: David Weinberger

David Weinberger — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:16:36 +0000

Dave, I think that’s an accurate assessment of what Forbes thinks it’s saying. But the consequence of what they consider to be non-consequence-free-speech imo would be to chill free speech more than I’d like.

By: dave rogers

dave rogers — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:58:46 +0000

I’d say it’s an argument against consequence-free speech.

There’s a difference, I think.

A little Milton for you on a Monday:

License they mean when they cry, Liberty!
For who loves that must first be wise and good.