Does p2pnet promote violence?
p2pnet news view P2P:- Regular readers will know I’m on a private list populated by a lot of senior corporate entertainment industry executives, lawyers, PR people, Yes-men (and ladies), and so forth.
I’m on the list thanks to my friend, the late Bill Evans. However, although it’s top heavy with representatives of various vested interests, there are also quite a few people who believe the way forward should be forward, not backwards. And I haven’t posted as much as I usually do, over the past couple of days, because I’ve been engaged in a —- well, I don’t know quite what to call it so we’ll just say ‘discussion’ with a leading corporate music industry light.
Citing suggestions from ‘many’ unnamed sources, a list member, a journalist turned lawyer, wrote Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas-Rasset, “went to trial, despite the overwhelming evidence against them, because they enjoyed being in the limelight, and relished the possibility of being a martyr and a hero for music industry critics”.
I said I didn’t know about Joel, but that I’ve had conversations with Jammie and I knew the idea she, at least, “enjoyed being in the limelight, and relished the possibility of being a martyr and a hero for music industry critics” was utterly ridiculous.
This produced a passionate personal attack against me, and in defence of the lawyer, from a major corporate music industry figure.
It slowly degenerated into worsening criticisms of me and p2pnet until out of the blue, [...] “Jon, why do you publish hate speech? Why do you tolerate comments on your p2pnet message board that advocate violence towards people, as in we should kill these people, they should die, etc”.
What ?!?!
And it got worse.
I responded. But I could see I wasn’t getting anywhere and posted, “I’ve said all I intend to say.”
But the music industry executive hadn’t had enough saying, “Given the circumstances, I suspect your attorney might agree with your decision not to comment further — the claims from the posters infer your involvement in suspect activity, at a minimum a deliberately blind eye — but why not discuss the issue more broadly?”
My attorney? I don’t have one.
There was more, but I’ll I simply post my final final comment below. Hopefully, it’ll also help clear things up for other people who’ve been complaining about comment posts.
I dipped into other p2pnet items so if you think you’ve seen for some of this before, you probably have.
Cheers! And all the best …
Jon
__________________________
For those of you who’ve been watching this thread, I said I wasn’t going to post any more. But XXX is an expert snide sniper. So I just want to add this:
I said I was being sued and although I don’t want to go through it here, if anyone’s interested, they’ll find the details about my case in this BBC story which, as I say, is still pending. It started in July, 2006, but won’t be heard until February next year. The article, by Michael Geist, is called ‘Free speech, libel and the internet age’ – http://tinyurl.com/mkh5wl
Meanwhile, XXX is a clever, skilled and seasoned sophist and I can’t hope to match him. So I’ll just have to make do with trying to tell it as it is from where I, and not XXX, sit.
I used to think [the list] was a great place to be — full of wise people with enlightening views and opinions. However, when XXX, a leader, launches into a vitriolic attack like the one he’s aiming at me, I have to wonder.
This has quite literally made me sick to my stomach.
I thought I’d made my answer, but maybe not and even though this discussion, as XXX calls it and which he began out of the blue, looks more like a trumped up attack against me on behalf of the corporate music industry, one of whom he works for, than a genuine attempt at communication, I’ll treat it seriously.
So — what’s allowable and what isn’t in a comment post?
For me, it’s quite simple. Anything and everything is potentially permissible. But in the seven years p2pnet has been online I’ve never seen a single instance of a threat of violence that looked even vaguely serious. If, however, I _did_ see such a thing, I’d instantly remove it.
Here’s what it says above every p2pnet comment box: “Please no Spam, flaming (attacking others), trolling, and posting off-topic. Thanks.” Of course, people do flame each other and recently, I telephoned two posters I thought were going too far and they both backed off. But I also have my share of nut cases, one of whom is quite infamous on various sites but who’s nonetheless allowed on p2pnet. I do, however, keep an eye on his comments and when he gets carried away, I delete them. As I’ve said, I’m just one person and I’m the only one who monitors posts and it’s entirely possible I may have missed one or two questionable items. But I won’t have missed many.
XXX says ‘… is the line violence, physical retribution for accessing the courts or seeking payment?’ I don’t even know what that means, but have I ever advocated violence or anything even vaguely resembling it for any reason? Never. Nor would I.
On copyright, I believe it’s archaic and positively detrimental to music and musicians and anyone and anything to do with them. So do I encourage breaking copyrights? If that means suggesting people completely stop buying from the usual suspects in favour of independent musicians and music sites, Yes, I do. If it means finding a way around the industry DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) consumer control to make a back-up, say, Yes, I do. If it means using P2P technology to be able to play music on any device, Yes, I do.
Do I believe once somebody buys something, s/he, and not the distributor or manufacturer, owns it wholly and completely, with all that implies? Yes, I do. Does that mean I think people should be able to copy whatever it is and re-sell it? I do not. Should they be able to share it online or off? Yes.
“How ought we act as publishers in a digital age?” – XXX asks.
For starters, stop treating the people who keep you alive as would-be robbers and thieves, calling them criminals and dragging them into court. Instead, start treating them as reasonable human beings — as people you should be working with instead of against.
Because consumers are customers again, and they’re in a spanking new economic territory which has never existed before. They, and not the corporations, have the power of control. It’s called freedom of choice. New technologies always threaten the old, established ones whose owners do everything they can to maintain the status quo. Eventually, though, they cave in …
The net is the Great Equaliser for the first time giving ordinary people a voice the powers-that-used-to-be have to listen to.
P2P technologies are the primary backbone for communications in this digital, not phsyical, 21st century. Many thousands of new people go online every day meaning for the first time in history, ‘we’ have a voice ‘they’ have to listen to.
Look at what’s happening in the entertainment industry, for example. Your labels are going blue trying to avoid the issues, but they’ll eventually be forced to acknowledge their customers as active participants rather than mindless cash-cows. Moreover, the companies and governments forget the people they’re threatening in various ways are also the ones who are conceiving, developing, servicing and administering the very systems which keep the wheels turning and the money coming in. Think about it.
Meanwhile, the attacks have driven innovators to develop what amounts to an independent parallel communications portal. It’s usually called the Darknet, but I prefer to call it the Light Net. And it’s going mainstream.
People tend to think of the music/movie file sharing thing as separate from ‘important’ world events. But sooner or later, what’s happening within this arena will spread to other areas. And let’s not forget the studios and media outlets the entertainment industry owns, which is most of them, have tremendous influence over what people think and do around the world. The establishment print and electronic media depend almost wholly on corporate advertising and the goodwill of governments and their many and various agencies to survive, which means the news and information they carry is often very badly skewed. In the parallel Light Net universe, blogs and sites such as p2pnet carry the news and information and I think eventually, there’ll be a huge Blog Directory. It’ll have information categories people will use to find out what’s happening, where to find services and products, and so on. And it won’t be another kind of search engine.
Record label investors should organize a Shareholders Alliance, appoint someone to run it and instruct him or her to disband the RIAA and fire the senior company executives. Their collective credibility is by now far too sullied to be of any further practical use, and they’ve already amply demonstrated they have no clue about how to run businesses in the digital 21st century. The Alliance should then name a very small group of people from all sides of all fences to brainstorm how P2P can be made to work for them. Once this group has come up with recommendations, some of the people who were fired could be re-hired to implement them — under close supervision.
The labels should immediately open their entire catalogues to the people they’ve more or less designated as their principal sales fronts, with iTunes and Napster II, Real Networks, and so on, to the fore. This content should be licensed to distributors (including the current P2P operators) at reasonable prices so people can buy tracks at between 20 and 30 cents per download. The organized criminals – the ‘pirates’ – depend largely on physical product to ply their illicit trades. They’ll find it a hell of a lot harder to operate when music and movie lovers are buying fairly priced music and movies from adequately stocked download sites. Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music should also stop spending ridiculous amounts of money publicizing the very thing they’re trying to quell. P2p and the digital media represent tremendous opportunities, not death knells.
The labels currently sell most of their inventory to offline consumers. However, more and more people are logging on every day and eventually, the balance will shift and anything that can be digitized WILL be digitized and sold online, not as physical product. Quite a few of the existing overheads, such as the money tied up in storage, print costs, enforcement, PR campaigns, etc, will consequently be drastically lowered, or cut altogether. This, in turn, will mean more and more people will be buying more and more reasonably priced product via the Net. And they’ll be talking about what’s good and what’s bad in their blogs, in emails, chats, IM, and so on. There’ll be no way for manufacturers to escape the results of releasing shabby product, as they’re able to do now.
We ‘consumers,’ as we’re still contemptuously known, are sharing information and completely by-passing the old marketing and sales religions. Also, like any other corporate entities, the RIAA owners ultimately have to answer to their shareholders. The false success they’re enjoying by suing the ordinary men, women and children who share music online serves nicely to obscure the reality that they’re making little headway against the organized criminals – and nor will they as long as they deal with physical product in a digital world. The ‘pirates’ are far more advanced than both the labels and the national police and enforcement units that cynically act for them. And that’s the way it’ll stay until the labels, studios and software makers smarten up.
P2P and file sharing are here to stay, XXX, and there’s nothing you or any of your employers can do about it. Trying to besmirch and belittle me won’t help.
And launching verbal violence against me and others like me isn’t going to help you or your cause either.
Cheers!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:40 am
I’ve just a bit of experience with attacks based purely on personal hatred, when people are too lazy or ill-informed to face real issues head-on. In fact, I’ve had years of such attacks and after a while they do become just another part of the scenery.
My words of advice: do NOT take it personally. Remember that the person attacking you is almost certainly doing so with envy, fear, and self-shame hidden in the mix someplace. You are someone moving forward with no guarantees, no corporate Godfather to ensure you get a fat paycheck and country club membership, no government bailouts or TeeVee stations to spread “your” propaganda. And yet you DARE to state your case and expect to be treated as an equal, a peer, a person who has just as much right to comment on issues within your knowledge space as anyone else?
In a very real sense, every troll – be they hidden an anonymous, or lurking behind a corporate title – posts based primarily on fear. Unable to imagine themselves actually having the courage to make forward-thinking, morally viable arguments when “conventional wisdom” doesn’t agree, they are completely intimidated by someone who will do exactly that – and sign their name to it, to boot. Not for money, or fame, or glory, or to further hatred – but just because it’s right.
I’ve seen people driven from many forums, discussion boards, mailing lists, and other venues by the intentional efforts of frightened, immature, angry trolls. Don’t let that happen – call the trolls out, as you have done, and the just go FORWARD with your discussions and life. The trolls are the dysfunctional, socially crippled, cowardly ones – not those of us with the balls to stand behind our words and avoid resorting to prejudice, hatred, or outright lies to tear someone else down. If the trolls are allowed to drive out those who speak and post honestly and for more than self-interest, then all that’s left is trolls and the spineless lackeys that won’t stand up to them in public. That would be a shame.
As with all trolls, it sounds that Mr. X simply wants to shut you up and make you go away – he’s pushing buttons hoping to accomplish just that. Don’t give him that power, and don’t resort to pushing buttons back. The thing we tend to forget about trolls is that they are their own worst enemies. Readers are smart, they know when someone’s just grandstanding and seeking easy targets to bully – and they know to ignore what trolls say because trolls have, by definition, zero real credibility. Sure, they may be loud and may shut down discussions with their incessant cowardice and hate – but for every troll, there’s 1,000 lurkers reading their trollposts and thinking the same thing: “what an asshole, glad I don’t have to deal with that piece of work on a daily basis.”
âLet my enemies devour each other.â
- Salvador Dali
July 31st, 2009 at 8:47 am
I totally agree with you Jon, keep up the good work
July 31st, 2009 at 8:56 am
You’re exposing the truth about their corruption effectively and they don’t like that. Don’t let the bastards get you down.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:10 am
“Does p2pnet promote violence?”
lol I don’t think so.
Does it promote voicing opinion or voicing some off color remarks, heck yeah. But all forums do. This place pales in comparison.
Does it have Canadians voicing the tardedness of some Americans?
For sure.
Violence?
Haven’t seen that.
I think someone is yanking your chain and making something out of nothing.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:12 am
full disclosure, jon. post the name of XXX and the cartels he/she represents. if his/her co-workers/clients/bosses know what he’s doing, he’ll surely be censured. you have the emails as proof of what he/she said.
just do it jon. put XXX in his place publicly. his company won’t like the bad publicity and the backlash it’ll cause.
you know it makes sense.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:39 am
Hey catflap. Actually, in this context, it doesn’t make sense. If it did, you wouldn’t have had to make the suggestion.
Censuring means nothing, and he and his company are already the subject of continuing bad PR.
Cheers!
July 31st, 2009 at 11:37 am
This doesn’t surprise me, in fact it tells me something.
First off, there is a poster here that ALWAYS posts something vaugely or directly
threatening to the industry members.
It’s always the same poster.
Someone knew specifically to jump at you about threats.
Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that the person posting those comments
that we don’t take seriously is …
A. in the employ of the labels, who would love to see the site closed down or discredited,
and “Hate Speech” is only a tiny step away from “Terrorist”, the new McCarthyism.
B. A troll that never left and hates the site, and knows that if he keeps posting threats,
even though we never take him seriously, that A. will eventually happen.
Since the people you spoke to knew exactly where to point the finger … A. seems likely, as well as
C. All of the above.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:44 am
name ‘em and shame ‘em!
it can’t be construed as libel or defamation because
you have emails to back it up.
if he’s too scared to come out amd defend himself publicly, then give ‘em a shove!
July 31st, 2009 at 11:48 am
It wouldn’t be that big of a stretch to believe the person complaining about the threats,
and the one posting the threats, are one and the same.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“First off, there is a poster here that ALWAYS posts something vaugely or directly
threatening to the industry members.”
Can’t say I ever really noticed that. For all I know it’s me, and I am being misinterpreted?
Let us not go on a witch hunt now. But again, I never noticed it before and I read and post daily.
Guess my mind is too simple to see the violence in stuff maybe.
I say torch em
July 31st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Also keep in mind that everyone posting here may not have english as their first language.
I know one french poster here who comes across a little harsh, but that’s the way the on-the-fly translation comes out in many cases.
So I take it with a grain of salt. Can’t say I ever noticed.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Hello:
I am on the same list as Jon and was following the thread. I do not wish to identify myself and have never communicated with Jon on or off the list.
The attack was unwarranted but it did serve at least one useful purpose. I found some of Jon’s ideas quite interesting and I am sure others did as well.
Thank you.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Is the “violence” they are referring to the chorus of voices on p2pnet and the rest of the net calling for the death of Corporate Copyright Cartels?
July 31st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
OMG you said the word “death” and “cartel” in the same sentence!
So much hate.
Aaaaaaiiii a terrorist! (please re-open gitmo!)
What to do. WHAT TO DO!
/me runs around in circles then jumps off a roof.
July 31st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I, too, am a member of the list to which Jon refers, and I can assure you that under the ground rules of the list, it would be entirely inappropriate to name the industry executive involved. List members are of course entitled to publish their own posts, but posting othersâ writings, or their names, is a no-no. (I too, do not wish to identify myself here.) So in this case, Jon has acted responsibly.
All that said, I would just add that the industry executive lashed out against Jon in a manner which as an occasional reader of p2pnet I found to be unproductive â even vicious, and most certainly ad hominem. The point is, this is a very heated issue, and weâre not going to get anywhere unless people stick to the discourse without resorting to nasty personal â and off-topic â attacks.
Although the episode was unfortunate â and I know and/or have corresponded with the principals involved â I agree with âVisitorâ that Jon’s comment was most interesting. Agree or disagree, Jonâs post was one of the most passionate and eloquent comments on this issue that Iâve seen in a long time. Jon, keep fighting the fight. I may not always agree with you, but your conviction and work has really added to the debate. Perhaps thatâs why youâve engendered such hostility from your opponents!
Finally, with respect to the issue of free speech/hate speech on p2pnet, I want to make clear: There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE free speech in this country. You cannot publish an an article advocating killing/harming someone else, just as you canât yell fire in a crowded theater. And while the law may be fuzzy about a publisher’s liability over comments posted by others on his site that some may deem “hate speech), the general rule of thumb — on a practical basis — is reminiscent of the classic Justice Potter Stewart axiom regarding porn; “I know it when I see it.” I feel confident that Jon knows hate/speech when he sees it.
Hopefully, this episode will serve as a reminder to people that threats, ad hominem attacks, and ill-thought out comments advocating violence really have no place in what is already a highly-fraught debate with tensions on both sides.
Please keep that in mind folks.
July 31st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
It’s nice to know that p2pnet.net is a thorn in the cartels side.
Truth hurts.
Maybe this is the “violence” being refereed to? The truth?
Keep up the great work Jon. Don’t let some cartel moron with a thorn in his side put you off.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I may not be on any list, but I understand the intent of this board, and one of those functions is to be a thorn in the MAFIAA’s side by exposing the gutless tactics they employ.
Keep up the good work Jon.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Hmm…..
1. Is it “violence” to advocate the killing-off of “corporate” persons?
I mean, our old pal Sam I am used to natter on and on about how “buisness is people”, and he was right — corporations are granted the status of “persons” under U.S. law (which is one of the reasons they pretty much own the political process.)
So, is it “violence” for someone to come out and say that the State — which CREATED those corporate “persons” in the first place — should k”kill” them, by revoking their status?
Would a culture where (corporate) businesses WEREN’T “people” really be so bad?
For that matter, would businessfolk be more honest/less pernicious if they weren’t able to hide under that “veil” seperating corporate and personal assets? Maybe they’d be a little more conscious of “externalities” involved in how they do business, if their PERSONAL assets were at stake. Hell, that’s the RIAA’s logic when they slap huge damages for file-sharing. They figure a big enough penalty might work as a “disincentive” against further infringement. (they’re wrong, because everyone who understands what the RIAA and corporate-media industry really ARE wants them utterly bankrupt and defunct, but I’m just clarifying their thinking.)
So if THEY figure the possibility of big penalties serves as a deterrent, why should the rest of us (anybody who IS NOT a corporate worm) allow them privileges such as limited-liability, much less corporate “personhood”
Then again, why should they have shit like copyright and patent, either?
2. The other question is: just how stupid does somebody have to be, to believe that violence only happens when “encouraged?”
There comes a point where people stop tolerating the intolerable, and start cheering for the so-called “bad guys”.
Bonnie & Clyde, the Barkers, Dillinger, and such became folk-heroes during the (last) Great Depression, because they gave the financial and polticial Elite a few whacks, and got a lot of publicity in the process.
But the only thing “encouraging” them, was the prevailing conditions of the time, and the overwhelming indifference to such conditions, by the moneyed elite.
But trying to blame rebellion on “rabble-rousers” is an old tactic, jon — and I think you should feel honored that at least somebody thinks you’re that much of a pain in the collective corporate ass.
I know I would.
Bye, Y’all!
July 31st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Jon advocating violence? thats completely ridiculous. I dont know why Jon gives some people the time of day; he must be a very patient man.
I’ll advocate right now that your accuser should violently thrash his/her head into the keyboard or something more jagged. OH jeez call the whaaambulance someone recited their personal opinion! It’s the internet, get used to it.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
So industry execs read the comments here? Great, I have something to say to them…
I’ll start respecting your copyrights, when you;
1. Return the copyright system to something resembling the way it was originally intended to work and stop trying to turn it into perpetual ownership.
2. Stop stomping on fair use, such as singing a portion of a song in a YouTube Video or using screen grabs on a web site.
3. Stop trying to charge license fees for ridiculous reasons, like a ringtone being a public performance.
4. Stop trying to kill every single piece of new audio/video technology that gets invented.
5. Stop insisting that electronics makers cripple their devices with DRM, such as region codes (yes, they do qualify as DRM).
6. Stop trying to portray non-commercial copyright infringement as the greatest threat the world has ever known.
7. Stop the movie industry from lying about how they’re being “devastated” by file sharing, while boasting of record profits.
8. Stop the music industry from screwing over the artists they claim they’re “protecting”.
9. Stop bribing (sorry, “lobbying”) politicians into passing one-sided laws that only favor the corporations.
10. Stop the ridiculous idea that people can’t buy content, only “license” it, and that you can tell them what they can do with that content.
Until then, as far as I’m concerned, you can take your copyrights and use them for toilet paper.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Hmm p2pnet promotes violence hunh.
And what does Hollywood do?
See the comic below for july 29th 2009
http://comics.com/think/
July 31st, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Jon & P2Pnet promoting violence??? Hell no, I couldnt even get a “you’re cute’ comment past him in reference to a pic that got put up here. How the hell can ANYONE claim Jon advocates violence, when he odviously cares so much about how things are perceived by visitors to this site. You want violence, go watch some of the BS you hollywood clowns claim to be movies!
Keep up the good work Jon!
and as always……stw
July 31st, 2009 at 8:45 pm
P2PNet is alone among the blogs and web sites dealing with digital issues. It is the only one which talks with the people instead of at them. I do not come here as often as I should but every time I do drop by I find something fresh and thought-provoking and, frequently amusing, and even sometimes downright funny.
As others here have said, keep up the good work, Jon. We are with you.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Hey Jon,
Hang tough
This is an amazing read- my favorite part:
People tend to think of the music/movie file sharing thing as separate from âimportantâ world events. But sooner or later, whatâs happening within this arena will spread to other areas. And letâs not forget the studios and media outlets the entertainment industry owns, which is most of them, have tremendous influence over what people think and do around the world. The establishment print and electronic media depend almost wholly on corporate advertising and the goodwill of governments and their many and various agencies to survive, which means the news and information they carry is often very badly skewed. In the parallel Light Net universe, blogs and sites such as p2pnet carry the news and information and I think eventually, thereâll be a huge Blog Directory. Itâll have information categories people will use to find out whatâs happening, where to find services and products, and so on. And it wonât be another kind of search engine.
Thanks Jon,
Liz
August 1st, 2009 at 6:23 am
The Nerd’s viewpoint is quite different.
The Internet is based on Packet technology with the majority of the “oomph” being genrated initially by the Unix community.
Under unix – “ps -eax” on a terminal screen will reveal runaway processes. i.e.: Tasks that you no longer want running.
The appropriate next step has always been to “kill -9 process id number” to prevent the runaway process from continung to shoot it’s mouth off.
No hate, no Terrorism – just simple Unix caretaking – which has obviously been adopted into everyday speech and is now totally misunderstood by Luddite lobbyists.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:24 am
Name me, shame me: I have no problem telling you it was me, Jim Griffin. I run Choruss and the Pho list. I released the first full-length digital song on-line (Aerosmith’s Head First) and put up the first entertainment industry web server in the mid-90s when I worked for Geffen Records.
I agree that sharing all music ought be made non-infringing. I am working hard to make that happen. Yes, we are currently incubated by Warner Music Group, but our company will soon be independent of rights holders. You can hate me for working with major music companies — I think it necessary to achieve the goal of legitimate music sharing — but it shouldn’t include threats of violence or worse.
My mom died this week, on Tuesday, and it made me particularly sensitive about some of the comments posted on p2pnet. Writing that others should die, deserve hospitalization, medical bills, deportation and so on is grossly inappropriate, as is continuing to publish comments of this nature. Yes, I share your distaste for the legal approach against individuals, but I think it wrong to write words like these. They cross an important line, and I was especially thin-skinned about this during this past week, and I told Jon how I feel about it.
I agree with much of what is advocated here on p2pnet as regards progress for the future and for the economy of ideas, but I do think some of these comments — die, kill them, etc. — cross the line and do not deserve publication. They stain the reputation of this otherwise decent community.
I welcome any of you to the Pho list. If you want to join the list, write me at griffinatonehousedotcom.
August 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
Choruss?
Damn my wife likes you guys. Always wins contests with Choruss for free tickets to this and that. “Choruss this and Choruss that”, yeeesh.
Wait till I tell her (she will probably read this later on anyhow)!
There is no hate for you because you work at Choruss. Lets not dirty the waters with such things.
ok the p2pnet thing…
Jon doesn’t write hate speech or advocate it. He even lets kids write topics here and what kids think. I even let my own daughters read his daughter postings (The cat pics are cute).
But to go as far into the hate thing was really uncalled for. It was kind of sad to see this.
You have to understand that the “lets deport em to gitmo”, “hope they die in nasty ways when the end comes for the misery they have brought on people and kids”, or maybe, “I hope they die” or whatever, and the stuff is a lot of emotion. Emotion from the young, emotion from people (kids/students) who probably lost thousands. Emotions from people reading the stuff.
But no one advocated violence. No one says go kill him or her or anything remotely like that (Not that I ever saw). If I saw that I certainly wouldn’t let my daughters read this web page. And to be frank, the gitmo and die examples above I rarey see as well. (though as a french Canadian you have to realize gitmo and deportation and the US is a hot topic in Quebec, and not exactly a good one when it comes to Quebec-US relations… but lets not turn this into a gitmo thing
)
Sorry for the loss of your Mom. I can understand the emotions involved in that as well. So maybe personal emotion met p2pnet emotion and there was a collision. A bit of an emotional breaking point leading to some unintended words? Happens to everyone on a down to earth person-2-person level.
I don’t hate. I don’t advocate hate. Jon doesn’t speak hate, he speaks with a passion (that I see).
So do I tell my wife to cut all her contest stuff with Choruss for free tickets?
Jim, +1 to you sir for coming out, and maybe for being a bit open into your personal life and situation that occurred. I have some respect for that.
I don’t agree that there is violence and hate speech here though. But maybe I see emotion watering the eyes a bit and clouding judgment.
But I think it did hurt/upset Jon I think. Not that I know, i just noticed he cut his day off. He doesn’t normally cut his day in half on this blog and go away feeling sick. (just something I noticed as another person)
Regards,
A p2pnet poster and very long time lurker.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@ Jim:
I’m sorry about your mother. I truly am.
My mother died a long time ago but I’m sure you’ll find, as I do, that she’ll always be with you.
Otherwise, thanks for posting on p2pnet.
Your attack against me hurt, and I won’t pretend otherwise. But it was also good for me. It reminded me why I do what I do. While you were writing your comment to p2pnet, I was writing this – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/26035.
I meant what I said about pho – it’s always been enlightening and I have, and had, nothing against you personally: we’ve ”virtually’ talked every now and then on the list, and I was really surprised when you went after me in the way you did.
You made a huge mountain out of a molehill with your charges of violence on p2pnet. You know as well as I do people write a lot of garbage. One of the people from the list posted here, “with respect to the issue of free speech/hate speech on p2pnet, I want to make clear: There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE free speech in this country. You cannot publish an an article advocating killing/harming someone else, just as you canât yell fire in a crowded theater. And while the law may be fuzzy about a publisherâs liability over comments posted by others on his site that some may deem âhate speech), the general rule of thumb â on a practical basis â is reminiscent of the classic Justice Potter Stewart axiom regarding porn; âI know it when I see it.â I feel confident that Jon knows hate/speech when he sees it.”
That said, maybe this is a way for you and I to help start a dialogue which’ll go a little way, at least, towards making some sense out of the mess the labels created, and insist on maintaining.
Thanks for inviting people who come to p2pnet to the pho list, and I hope some readers will accept and contribute to the discussions. If they do, they’ll find some of the best writing and some of the most illuminating thought on file sharing / copyright issues to be found anywhere. And they’ll also discover what’s really going on in the minds of some of the people who are behind the labels.
So, Jim, thanks. We can have radically different views and still get along.
Cheers! And all the best …
August 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Jim and Jon,
let me personally offer my condolences and sympathies to your family. My aging mother is very ill, so while I can’t relate to your experience, I do know how painful it is when a close family is seriously ill.
At the outset, let me say that I will not be engaging this issue publicly on pho or p2pnet (eg. by my using name), because it would be inappropriate considering my role as a journalist covering these issues. I will, however post this comment to p2pnet, in the hopes of giving people more to think about. Jon, I apologize for the anonymity, but considering that I may cover these issues in the future — as I have in the past –z I simply can’t comment under my name publicly. I realize you may consider this some form of cowardice, but I simply choose to separate my professional writing, (eg. that under my name for which I am paid, with personal participation in an online forum — one public, one private. Unfortunately, by using my name, it could be construed that I am writing in a professional capacity, which is not the case).
Now.
I happen to like and respect both you Jim, and Jon, and while I do believe you were out of line, Jim, with your hate speech sortie against Jon, your brave admission of your personal context helps me understand the underlying emotional dynamics at work.
Both you and have Jon have gone way above and beyond the call of duty in engaging people in this momentous debate — a debate where what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of the music business and digital media more broadly in an age of uncertainty, fear, and grinding — and painful — transition across all media, including my own little corner of the business: journalism. (As an aside, Jim, I am well aware of your work as an advocate for journalists, and have zero doubt about your respect for free speech.)
I can’t help but think of Obama’s beer-summit, (what a stupid term), with Gates and Crowley in this exchange. The goal here is to bring opposing sides together in the spirit of looking forward, where cool heads can prevail and progress can be made.
In Federalist #10, James Madison confronted the problem of faction in the context of a democratic (small d) form of government vs. a rebublican (small r) form of government. In arguing for the superiority of the latter, Madison concluded that, “you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”
In other words, Madison argued that is was the very existence of a multiplicity of factions that could lead to stability and progress by each of the various factions serving as a check on each other. Seems somewhat relevant here.
Jim, Jon, Thanks for what you both do. Keep up the good fight.
August 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
” My mom died this week, on Tuesday, and it made me particularly sensitive about some of the comments posted on p2pnet. Writing that others should die, deserve hospitalization, medical bills, deportation and so on is grossly inappropriate, as is continuing to publish comments of this nature. Yes, I share your distaste for the legal approach against individuals, but I think it wrong to write words like these. They cross an important line, and I was especially thin-skinned about this during this past week, and I told Jon how I feel about it. ”
First off, sincere condolences on the death of your mother. I’m not certain how I would handle that if it were me.
Second, could you quote and reference the specific posts that offended you ?
I’m willing to bet it is the poster I referred to in my earlier post, and that poster does
this to deliberately cause the reaction you had, hoping to discredit the site.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
heheh, its funny, the ‘Guest with knowledge of the situation’, writes claiming the same reasoning for anonymity that undergrounders like myself use,.
if the MAFIAA wouldnt demonize file sharing to the level of terrorism, neither I, or the Guest would actually have to write on p2pnet under psuedonyms.
How ironic that you, Guest, which whom I happen to know who you are, btw.. would post on p2pnet, and then painstakingly begrudge the requirement for anonymity..
heheh, its ironic that even yourself, Guest, are a victim of the MAFIAA bullshit…
having said my offtopic piece of rant, as for p2pnet promoting violence.. sigh, here we go again.. the board is not responsible for the contents of users posts, there is a safe harbor clause in the DMCA for said activity. Insinuating that Jon himself condones such behavior by not addressing, moderating, deleting, it is just another angle of trolls from the MAFIAA and elsewhere in an attempt to besmirch the integrity of the board/Jon.
it all boils down to one thing.. p2pnet tells it like it is, and has an intelligent following of interesting people that are NOT, and I repeat NOT brainwashed sheeple that your current business model is based on exploiting.
if anyone is guilty of violence its the MAFIAA for raping and sodomizing their artists into indentured slavery, and then raping and sodomizing their customers into blind obedience, and inventing vaporous laws to support said violence.
‘no more wire hangers’ – Mommie Dearest (1981)
August 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
if you want to monetize digital distribution, and minimize ‘illicit’ file sharing, just ask someone that file shares, go ahead, ask me, I will tell you how, its easy.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
They have already seen a good working model, that made money like crazy, and had the foresight to close it
down before it proved the adage “you can’t compete with free’ wrong.
oops too late.
August 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
While it shows maturity and courage for Jim to own up to his words (and I offer condolences for his loss, genuinely, as I am sure all of us do), there’s a clever rhetorical trope being put to work here.
Jim specifically alleged ENCOURAGEMENT OF VIOLENCE on the part of p2pnet in his original attacks against Jon. Even those of us who live and breathe the topic of freedom of speech generally accept some things are “beyond the pale.” Humans are emotional creatures, and whipping them into a killing frenzy is NOT free speech (the “Radio Rwanda” example”). So when someone accuses a site of fomenting real violence, that’s a serious accusation. In the case of p2pnet, it’s a flat-out lie.
Now, Jim comes for a mea culpa by confusing his plain-language claims about violent language with “hate” posts. I call bullshit. There is nothing intrinsically violent, evil, or inappropriate about stating genuine hatred of something – particularly of a behavior, a concept, or a market tendency. As a Buddhist, I try to avoid engagement with hatred, but an old Zen aphorism goes as follows: a famous Zen master stubs his toe on the way to meditation and utters a ripe curse (”ooow, FUCK that hurt” or some such). His student, hearing this, is aghast – “but, Master, are we not past earthly concerns and foul language like that?” To which the Master replies, “well, in theory, but we still inhabit our bodies here for the time being – and sometimes we do things that fucking HURT – no harm in being honest.”
Heated rhetoric, passionate posting, and even hatred of specific things is NOT the same thing as advocating real violence against real people. Stating that one hopes that the music cartels “die off” permanently is NOT a wish for violence against a physical person. Saying someone “deserves deportation” isn’t the same as advocating violence. Conflating the two – intentionally hiding behind the claim of “violence” while only citing nonviolent examples of “hate posts” here is willfully misleading. Karl Rove might approve – just change the subject and pretend the original subject was never mentioned – but here, with an audience accustomed to factual discourse and objective discussions, it doesn’t fly.
If you want to apologize for accusing Jon of encouraging VIOLENCE – a false claim which I am sure you knew was false when you made it – then apologize for that. Don’t hide behind lame sophistry, and attempts to dodge accountability – many of us here are as well-trained (or more so) in rhetorical techniques as you are, and we’ll not hesitate to call bullshit when you try such tricks.
When debates are heated, heated words fly – this is hardly a Bad Thing. Falsely accusing someone like Jon of a genuine wrong is entirely a separate matter. I am glad you’re looking to make money from the past failures of the RIAA, good for you. That doesn’t give you special privileges to defame someone like Jon, as you seek to build your new empire.
August 1st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
+10 Fausty
August 1st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
that is the best, level headed smack-down I have read since Henry bitch slapped Sam I Am around months ago, Fausty…
+10 from here as well…
stw
August 1st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Excuse me, #surfer, if I may.
You write:
“heheh, its funny, the âGuest with knowledge of the situationâ, writes claiming the same reasoning for anonymity that undergrounders like myself use,.”
This is false. As a matter of fact, I do not — as a matter of principle — comment under my own name on stories that I actively cover as a reporter. This should seem obvious. I’m writing not as “XX – professional reporter” but rather as someone who knows the principle actors involved and is hoping to nudge the discussion in a more productive fashion.
Unlike you, who may consider yourself a member of “the underground,” I am very much “above the ground” as someone who has written extensively under my own name, in public, and in a professional capacity — eg. for money — on this topic. And it’s not in my — or my readers — interest to let the appearance of non-neutrality cloud my work and their perception of it. Both of the principals in this matter know me, and it should be obvious to members of the Pho list who care, who I am.
Bottom line: this is not business, it’s personal.
Two final points, surfer: First, if you “happen to know who [I am], btw,” as you claim, please email me directly. Since you “know who I am,” I’m sure you have my email address. Second, you claim that it is “ironic that you, Guest, which whom I happen to know who you are, btw.. would post on p2pnet, and then painstakingly begrudge the requirement for anonymity.”
This is simply false. I post on p2pnet because I appreciate the forum and want to support Jon. However, as a matter of policy, I don’t comment using my name, unless in response to a comment to a story I’ve written. That said, if anyone would like to be in personal touch with me, please email Jon, and he’ll get you touch with me. Second, I don’t “painstakingly begrudge the requirement for anaonymity.” This statement is simply absurd because there is NO requirement for anonymity on p2pnet. I have no interest in this fight other than to see the dialogue move forward constructively. With respect to Pho, the issue is not so much anonymity, but rather confidentiality. When I post on Pho, I use my name because the list has a strict off-the-record code of conduct — one of the reasons it’s become such a vibrant community.
Finally, this statement, “its ironic that even yourself, Guest, are a victim of the MAFIAA bullshit⦔ is laughable considering the fact that over the last several years, I’ve been one of the more aggressive reporters challenging the RIAA, MPAA as well as the telcos/cablecos on issues that many on p2p find really important. Again, as Jon Newton.
Bottom line, so much commenting and list threads can devolve into ego-driven bickering and gotcha exchanges. It’s my sincere hope that Jim and Jon can get together and use their formidable minds, visions, and passion to help move this debate forward.
cheers.
August 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
this is what the board is for, you have your opinion, and I have mine, both equitably voiced.
stw
August 1st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
wait, you remained anonymous because it was personal? so it’s ‘personally anonymous’?
odd…
and I read your articles, there are great.
stw
August 1st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
@surfer
bah, like surfer is your real name and you are not anon.
Gimme a break.
Many people wish to stay anon for various and numerous reasons.
Don’t play the anon game here where Jon allows anon posting for various and numerous reasons.
Play the game on one of your “undergound” serial number forums. Or open a board that requires your drivers lic. to be submitted before a comment. Not here.
Puuuh-lease.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
you forgot to sign it as Mike Acker.. Henry is riding you like a biyatch over in the other thread…
August 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
@surfer
I don’t know if you are replying to RW above (me) or to “Guest with knowledge”.
Nor do I think this is the time or topic for your rhetoric schoolyard kiddy crap.
However, if it’s me, I would be more than delighted to rip you a new hole continually (phone call or not) since I view you as the new Chronoss of 2009-2010.
Regards,
NOT, Mike Acker.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
hi Jon! if they think you promote violence then they are very sheltered in there net travels! i myself stumbled on your site several years ago and have followed it with enjoyment and appreciation.it informs me and in some cases the coments of the posters make me smile,if not laugh out loud!i myself have reached the point of wishing they would do totally away with copywrite!as i said in another post ,not sure if it was here or not! i remember when copywrite was something to protect artists and writers,now it’s a club to beat down ordinary people!you do an awesome work here Jon,please continue to do so !! oh by the by how are your nieghbors doing ? the ones in the gerber sights?? be well Jon
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
Copyright, hate, and violence aside.
I love the issue.
(I would be mad, scared, threatened, ashamed, embarrassed, shy, hurt and other if I was the website owner and writer, personally. And everything Fausty summed up.)
But I give that Griffin guy some kudos for having a big set of balls.
Takes balls to say that, then post in public he is the one to say it (don’t know if I would have).
So if I question even myself (as an easily scared individual, by someone with a name), then I have to raise a thumb to Griffin in some weird and odd way (keeping in mind I would be scared off, as would many of you).
Jon promotes dialog. No one can deny this. That is Jon and his way. Which is good.
Did Griffin cross a line? Hell yes. But, he was man enough to own up to it (unlike many).
This is indeed a strange and mystifying thing that happened.
Can anything come of it?
Can dialog be opened?
Should people hate and be devoured by what Griffin said, even though it’s not true?
Should Mr. Griffin be allowed a moment of lapse (perhaps even a week or more) in the heat of emotion? Should others? SHould people be sued to get a commenters IP address in Canada?
Should Jon react in the way others might react (via lawyers)?
Is there so much hate on p2pnet that it calls for lawyers to be involved? Maybe specialized lawyers trained in hate crimes that do very much exist in Canada (where Jon lives)?
Should the B.C. Civil Liberty Association be involved because Jon is protecting what people say and he says, even though accused of hate crimes and violence?
Should CIPPIC be involved?
Should there be laws that seek out damages against false claims of hate? Like there should be laws about bogus take down orders on the net?
Many, many questions arise.
Many, many new waters to tread in Canada in regards to online speech and freedom of association, and the right of freedom of expression. Note that Canada only has a charter and does not have a free-Speech thing like the US does.
Canada aside, Quebec runs a bit different. How would Quebec courts react to this?
Many, many questions come up.
Mr. Griffin, I raise my glass to you.
Jon, I raise my glass to you.
My suggestion.
Sue Mr. Griffin for the sum of 1 dollar for each offense you can think of.
Test the courts.
Test Canada’s laws.
Take the challenge (both of you)
(unless of course if there is more to this and lawyers are already involved)
Dare you.
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 am
Also, maybe this should go to the Canadian Human rights commission.
They are a scary bunch (that I have read). Not the kind of people you fuck with when Bell Canada themselves are upset with them and what happened in the past with one of their own employee’s.
Lots of new waters….
Worth testing.
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 am
@non lawyer
Also worth testing is the CRTC.
The CRTC has raised the question to the Canadian courts if the ISP should be regarded as a broadcaster “in whole or in part”.
If Jon is regarded as a source of hate/violence (a crime in Canada), the CRTC (if the courts pass it) would be obliged to have p2pnet.net blocked in all of Canada.
Ref:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4207/196/
In the past couple of years the Jewish Counsel in Canada here tried to have some U.S. white supremest website blocked in all of Canada (they wanted hate sites blocked in Canada), I think this was headed by Mr. Warman (of the Canadian Human Rights Commission) search Dr. Geists website for this.
CRTC denied it. Net was not “broadcasting”, if I recall right.
You are indeed correct.
A charge of hate/violence in Canada has very, very significant ramifications. More so depending how the CRTC’s question to the courts go.
I agree, worth the challenge.
Scary for sure.
August 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
As a long time discussant of Pho since November ‘03, this was my final post on the list – to Jim Griffin as it happens:
I’ve since been drummed out of two other mailing lists: FreeCulture.org (CC fan club) and very recently the Open Rights Group list (a closed list discussing rights as defined by UK law rather than nature).
Clearly I have a good record of only subscribing to lists that would rather not have me as a member.
An echo chamber where people restrict themselves to discussing any flavour of ice cream as long as it’s vanilla may provide succour for those hoping to reassure themselves at the prospect of changes brought about by technological revolution, but if you remove the more exotic flavours of argument you aren’t doing the list membership any favours. The comfort of tradition disturbed only by a few drips of chocolate sauce doesn’t equip you for the shock of the future – and the end of the monopoly you’ve come to know and love.
You can grasp at excuses for ejecting people from a list, but whilst those excuses may have some intrinsic merit they don’t justify banishing those who promote arguments contrary to your own, nor simply so that you can keep your flock innocent and unsullied by them. The argument for Choruss isn’t made stronger by shunning those who would argue against it.
I agree that there is rarely* any call to incite violence against individuals or classes of people, but when fundamentally innocent people are singled out by the labels for vindictive litigation and their lives irreparably affected (simply to educate others of their generation), one shouldn’t be too surprised to find youngsters of that generation riled into making strong comments against such corporate psychopaths. And yes such commenters should be careful not to cross the line into incitement of violence.
Pho is a great list and I still commend and link to it from my website, but like all lists its arguments should be liberated from its host’s pleasure.
In striving to liberate commenters from his pleasure Jon may consequently have a very light touch in moderating comments on P2PNet, but then commenters should be responsible for their own words. Perhaps we can simply agree that there should be a few more reprimands made in response to irresponsibly incendiary and violent comments?
* Some might say there’s sanction to incite violence against genocidal dictators or terrorists.
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
By browsing blogs and forums on the net in general, there is one thing I noticed.
The anger of many people is through the roof and so many posters talk so harshly about the recording and movie industry.
This is not just at P2pnet. Actually p2pnet is full of restrain and moderation and is very clever at analyzing the situation.
They refuse to see this but each outrageous action they take such as the DMCA, the extortion campaign, Joel, Jammie, The Pirate Bay, not only is ineffective but is counterproductive. Their extreme arrogance is counterproductive too.
It is more than time for the entertainment companies if they want to still be around five years from now to fire executives who clearly have no clue of what is going on the market these days, stop acting like terrorists, apologies to the public and have a real discussion. The economy, the society can not afford this type of behavior any more and will act accordingly.
Joel, Jammie, The Pirate Bay are not victory for them. They are defeat since it fails to convince people to stop sharing and on the contrary encourage them to do so.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
+1 Crosbie Fitch!
In regards to your *.
“Some might say thereâs sanction to incite violence against genocidal dictators or terrorists.”
I think you are off here.
There are indeed hate sites in the good ol’ U.S. of A directed at other countries that do not have “genocidal dictators or terrorists”. Cuba is a fine example of that.
The states tend to make up their own laws as they go that benift them and only them (UK aside). “you are either with us, or against us”.
Just had to make that correction.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
http://comics.com/think/2009-07-29/
August 5th, 2009 at 6:44 am
R’sW, I don’t doubt that there are plenty who incite violence, states among them. I’m referring to the ethical argument as to whether incitement of violence SHOULD EVER be sanctioned, e.g. “We must hunt down and kill X because they murdered N thousand people”.
However, that’s quite an excursion from the clear argument against inciting violence upon individual members of recording and film industry companies and associations because of their litigious persecution of fundamentally innocent members of the public. I’d agree with Jim Griffin that it should be deprecated and reprimanded (as should be the litigation).
It would be better to persuade the executive and legal staff of such companies that they should either mend their ways or find other employment if they wish to retain any degree of moral integrity. People who assist in the persecution of individuals for enjoying their cultural liberty cannot hide behind a shield of legal impartiality, nor an obligation to maximise share value.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
To Jon: You probably don’t know me and I dont’ know you. But I seriously doubt someone as passionate as yourself would advocate violence. Those charges were false and uncalled for. You’re only trying to voice your opinions and expose the bad things hidden in this dark, gloomy world of ours. So keep doing what you’re doing. I feel very strongly about things that are obviously wrong.
To Jim: I’m very sorry your mother passed away. You just lashed out in anger without thinking. The only thing hateful to me is hate itself. In other words, I don’t hate you for what you did. I just don’t like what you did. Like Susano from Okami (I’m a video game junkie, by the way) would say, “I condemn the offense, not the offender.” The thing is everyone is going through a tough time because the media is thinking of ways to get more ill-deserved money. And as I read these articles, I don’t know what to think. But they woke me up, just like they awakened everyone else on this site. The truth may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s good for you. Thank you both for taking the time to listen to someone who is angry and sad at the same time. I guess I won’t feel satisfied until the corruption is gone for good.