QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th June 2010, 10:56am)
Another
case of Austin Hair making sure Foundation-l parrots only the ideas and musings of David Gerard and the other WMF'ers.
I wonder if we should promote the usage of "Wiki*edians" or even "Wiki(p/m)edians" to refer to people who aren't necessarily employed by the WMF but nevertheless are in total ideological alignment with them?
Anyway, Dave's original one-line post to the WikiEN-L thread linked to
this article in Wired about how ASCAP is targeting Creative Commons, along with the EFF and other "copyleft" groups, in their latest fundraising letter. On the one hand, it's just a fundraising letter, and IMO most people just assume fundraising letters are full of all sorts of exaggerations and misinformation. (Unfortunately, there are often exceptions to this, which is why people continue to send them.) As usual, though, Dave fails to twig to the key point (of the article), which isn't that Creative Commons was included in the fundraising appeal, but that the appeal came out just one day after a high-ranking US Government official essentially rejected (by way of omission) the MPAA/RIAA-conceived plan to force ISP's to terminate the accounts of people who download copyrighted movies, music, and presumably, pornographic "fan-fic."
QUOTE
The fund-raising campaign came a day after Victoria Espinel, the nation’s copyright czar, outlined an intellectual-property enforcement plan that did not include a call to push internet service providers to adopt policies to cut service to repeat copyright scofflaws. Such a policy, referred to as “three strikes†or “graduated response,†was strongly backed by the motion picture and recording industries, and opposed by EFF and Public Knowledge.
Ottava seems to be strongly in ASCAP's corner on this issue, and objected to Dave's implicit suggestion that Wiki*edians (eh?) should "react" to the fundraising letter in some (presumably negative) way.
As is often the case, Ottava has a valid point, but I'm afraid his personality (i.e., tendency to ascribe immoral or evil motivations to those who oppose his views on various issues) sort of got in the way of his expressing it. Still, I doubt they would have put him "on moderation" if he had expressed a pro-copyleft position in the same way... or at least not as quickly.