Comments on: DeLong leaves PFF

By: Weldon Mckay

Weldon Mckay — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:24:16 +0000

hemileia pullman witherer metratonia wiseling deschampsia manchesterdom frenchwoman
11
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/12.html
18
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/10.html
3
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/9.html
5
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html
8
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/10.html
12
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/11.html
17
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
6
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/18.html
5
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/3.html
15
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html

By: Weldon Mckay

Weldon Mckay — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:24:16 +0000

hemileia pullman witherer metratonia wiseling deschampsia manchesterdom frenchwoman 11 http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/12.html 18 http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/10.html 3 http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/9.html 5 http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html 8 http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/10.html 12 http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/11.html 17 http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html 6 http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/18.html 5 http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/3.html 15 http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html

By: MikeT

MikeT — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:49:14 +0000

The evasiveness can most readily by attributed to the fact that many of their critics have enough of a background in the technical fields under discussion to speak over their heads. Tim, your background is Computer Science, so is mine. Probably many of your readers have similar backgrounds. Theirs, however, is in law. When you discuss things like DRM, they want to discuss abstract, philosophical concepts. You, me, and others want to discuss how interoperable DRM would be implemented first before we even taint the law with legislation. That’s bound to clash.

By: MikeT

MikeT — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:49:14 +0000

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:37:37 +0000

Speaking of the issue of avoiding engaging in a serious debate:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/p...

And another relevant post, perhaps:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/c...

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:37:03 +0000

I’ll just pipe up that I was fascinated to find out that DeLong made ~ $140K in 2003 for being a PFF “Senior Fellow” (from PFF’s public tax data). A jolly good fellow indeed. Think-tankery is quite the business.

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:37:37 +0000

Speaking of the issue of avoiding engaging in a serious debate:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/patrick-ross-wikipedia-contributor/

And another relevant post, perhaps:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/civility-where-art-thou/#comment-1512

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:37:03 +0000

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:07:02 +0000

Tim one of your methods of getting attention has been to throw insults. You even boast of it above in a resentful rant that Jim never flattered you w attention. Its been important that I engaged you, otherwise anybody from the industry would mistake the think tanks on TLF, where you write the most, as uninformed and detached. You have valued our engagements since you seemed to have settled down and gotten more sense of proportion (at times). Thank me later.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:18:21 +0000

Engima, I think it’s pretty obvious that when people resort to petty insults, it’s because they have no real arguments to offer. So I don’t really mind when Noel makes comments like that–especially given that if my work really wasn’t worth his time and trouble, he wouldn’t spend so much time leaving insulting comments here on TLF.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:07:02 +0000

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:18:21 +0000

By: Noel

Noel — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:05:47 +0000

Enigma, its obvious Tim has been trying to needle Jim to respond to him. Its called envy.

And why would JDeLong bother? I mean, haha, come on, seriously...

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:43:00 +0000

Noel:

Thank you very much for the strong endorsement of Tim's Paper. I will read now for sure!

In the mean time, though, this is another data point on TLF were its OK to be rude to certain people with certain views:

Tim, you were never worth Jim's time. Period. Simple.

By: Noel

Noel — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:05:47 +0000

Enigma, its obvious Tim has been trying to needle Jim to respond to him. Its called envy.

And why would JDeLong bother? I mean, haha, come on, seriously...

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:43:00 +0000

Noel:

Thank you very much for the strong endorsement of Tim's Paper. I will read now for sure!

In the mean time, though, this is another data point on TLF were its OK to be rude to certain people with certain views:

Tim, you were never worth Jim's time. Period. Simple.

By: Noel

Noel — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:25:59 +0000

This post was basically a plea by Tim for somebody to read his paper. Hysterical... too funny.

I don't see any reason for a substantive reply to Tim's paper. I would not say it was awful, but it was not substantive. Analysis of the DMCA cases was done by check-list (if it does not repeal the DMCA, it stifles innovation), and the paper downright omits some DMCA cases (where there are not many to begin wth). If Tim is going to recite it over and over, I would update it.

By: Noel

Noel — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:25:59 +0000

This post was basically a plea by Tim for somebody to read his paper. Hysterical... too funny.

I don't see any reason for a substantive reply to Tim's paper. I would not say it was awful, but it was not substantive. Analysis of the DMCA cases was done by check-list (if it does not repeal the DMCA, it stifles innovation), and the paper downright omits some DMCA cases (where there are not many to begin wth). If Tim is going to recite it over and over, I would update it.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:16:28 +0000

I rather agree with Doug, noting that Jim and Patrick both refused to acknowledge substantive arguments, repeatedly. Solveig does the same thing, although her tone is sometimes strident, so I am not expecting a big change over at IP Central.

The reason behind these changes, I would suspect, is that many corporations that funded dis-information campaigns through so-called think tanks realized that there was a decreasing return, and even negative affects generated by this activity, so there has probably been a decrease in funding (my guess) For example, Chevron has stopped funding the CEI and there dis-information campaign re: global warming.

Example of arguments neglected by IP Central folks include my observation that Patrick Ross's criticism of wikipedia actually ended up improving it. Thus, wikipedia had subsumed the work of its critics.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:09:55 +0000

Noel: That comment was uncalled for. Tim is exploring what would constitute a legitimate "property right" given the advances in technology.

My issue with the PFF is that they are not considering a rationale re-evaluation of the limits of property rights but believe that new unlimited property rights can be seized out of the vacuum created by technological progress.

What I find interesting from a historical perspective is that the French and Chinese cultural revolutions collapsed when they began feeding on themselves (note the artwork for the TLF). Given, all the press coverage on the laws suits being filed over patent/copyright infringement I wonder if the "intellectual property" (sorry Tim) crowd has gone into a cannibalistic feeding frenzy. Techdirt reported that the AACS itself is being sued for patent infringement. I look forward to Tim further developing a rationale definition of "property right" given the technological environment.

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:16:28 +0000

The reason behind these changes, I would suspect, is that many corporations that funded dis-information campaigns through so-called think tanks realized that there was a decreasing return, and even negative affects generated by this activity, so there has probably been a decrease in funding (my guess) For example, Chevron has stopped funding the CEI and there dis-information campaign re: global warming.

Example of arguments neglected by IP Central folks include my observation that Patrick Ross's criticism of wikipedia actually ended up improving it. Thus, wikipedia had subsumed the work of its critics.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:09:55 +0000

Noel: That comment was uncalled for. Tim is exploring what would constitute a legitimate "property right" given the advances in technology.

My issue with the PFF is that they are not considering a rationale re-evaluation of the limits of property rights but believe that new unlimited property rights can be seized out of the vacuum created by technological progress.

What I find interesting from a historical perspective is that the French and Chinese cultural revolutions collapsed when they began feeding on themselves (note the artwork for the TLF). Given, all the press coverage on the laws suits being filed over patent/copyright infringement I wonder if the "intellectual property" (sorry Tim) crowd has gone into a cannibalistic feeding frenzy. Techdirt reported that the AACS itself is being sued for patent infringement. I look forward to Tim further developing a rationale definition of "property right" given the technological environment.

By: Doug Lay

Doug Lay — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:04:36 +0000

DeLongs writing had grown increasingly crackpot and desperate over the last couple of years, as the failure of DRM, the continued success of OSS and the incompatibility of the Internet and the property metaphor all became increasingly apparent. I wonder if he jumped or if he was pushed. Regardless, the departure of DeLong and Patrick Ross is a good thing for the PFF's credibility. I guess Solveig Singleton is the senior person over there on "IP" these days. Good for her. In tone if not in substance, she is a big improvement over those guys. Unlike them, I get the feeling she is capable of intellectual growth and change.

Richard, I thought the shopping cart blog was hilarious too, but I was laughing AT him, not WITH him.

Noel, I think Tim is doing just fine without Jim's attention. Folks like Tim and Jim Harper are helping reclaim libertarianism from the miguided DeLong-Epstein crowd. Looks to me like they're winning, for the most part.

By: Doug Lay

Doug Lay — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:04:36 +0000

Richard, I thought the shopping cart blog was hilarious too, but I was laughing AT him, not WITH him.

Noel, I think Tim is doing just fine without Jim's attention. Folks like Tim and Jim Harper are helping reclaim libertarianism from the miguided DeLong-Epstein crowd. Looks to me like they're winning, for the most part.

By: Noel

Noel — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:42:32 +0000

Tim, you were never worth Jim’s time. Period. Simple.

By: Noel

Noel — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:42:32 +0000

Tim, you were never worth Jim’s time. Period. Simple.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 02:43:04 +0000

IT doesn't look to me like DeLong is retiring, he's founding a new think tank called Convergence Law Institute.

His "shopping cart" blog was spot-on, and quite hilarious, BTW.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:43:04 +0000

IT doesn't look to me like DeLong is retiring, he's founding a new think tank called Convergence Law Institute.

His "shopping cart" blog was spot-on, and quite hilarious, BTW.