Comments on: there he goes again

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:17:03 +0000

My favorite way to discredit Keen is that: he is the self-proclaimed expert on how self-proclaimed experts should not be relied upon. Truly, a parody. Please, everyone, don't was your time reading him or listening to or watching a video of him at a conference (especially the hour long ones). It will waste your time and make you dumber. And don't link to him.

By: Cameron Fredman

Cameron Fredman — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:27:07 +0000

I'm sorry Larry, but I spoke to some unreliable unnamed sources and it turns out you do laud the illegal appropriation of intellectual property, regardless of what you may write, speak, or think about the matter. (I kid.)

By: Oliver Shulman

Oliver Shulman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:52:07 +0000

It is my understanding that Lessig only eats poor babies, Swift-ly.
Keen seems a *G*E*T* *A*T*T*E*N*T*I*O*N* (to quote Seth Finkelstein - without permission) cartoon drawn on the back of a British business card and not too.

To imply, in these comments, that Lessig is even considering a libel case is absurd. Where is that coming from? Read the post.

Keen's arrogant and feeble incompetency is not news.
Watch a couple of the debates between Keen and Weinberger from 2007. Weinberger's keen restraint is laudable. Keen makes no sense whatsoever, ever.

By: Steve Baba

Steve Baba — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:31:28 +0000

Someone above indirectly posted the link to the debate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1S6h4IXqcRs

You can draw your own conclusions, but to me it looks like Lessig is using a cheap legal trick springing an unexpected question, he should have brought he notes, right, and Lessig is laughed down when giving his explanation to why not sue.

Since virtually no lawyers publicly advocate breaking laws, and even legal organizations such as the Pirate Party does not advocate illegal piracy, I find it hard to believe that except for people too close to the situation and naive pirates hearing what they want to hear, would read “laud the appropriation” as “laud the illegal appropriation.”

By: Drue Kataoka

Drue Kataoka — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:17:31 +0000

Thank you Prof. Lessig for braving the new frontiers. Bill Fenwick and I enjoyed talking with you after the panel and we've posted our response at ValleyZen.com here:

http://www.valleyzen.com/2008/03/10/everybody-should-run-for-president-at-the-same-time/

This includes a short video of the panel where I captured part of the "Wonderland" quote.

By: James D. Newman

James D. Newman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:48:48 +0000

I’ve read a lot of Keen — and he is just playing to a particular market. He is speaking to conservatives who are frightened of the sexual content on the internet, to academics whose toupees go crooked at the mention of Wikipedia. He speaks to the same crowd that was afraid of “jungle music” and the erosion of the “Cannon” and the extension of marriage privileges to inter-racial couples and homosexuals.

You will accuse me of being too broad — and certainly evaluated claim by claim I have been too broad — but, pay attention now, Keen is making an EMOTIONAL argument — and he thinks that everyone who opposes him is making the opposite emotional argument. Lessig is making a (perhaps emotionally motivated) intellectual argument — and Keen is probably not capable of recognizing the distinction — or he would categorize it as splitting hairs. (with us or agin us?)

Keen is using the language of marketing — but he isn’t just selling books. The same sloppy thinking goes on at Fox, at NPR, at the State Department.

I believe it is important to slow the conversation down when encountering people painting in such broad strokes, and do exactly what Lessig did — evaluate the claims of fact — and expose the empty advertising claims (with CHLOROPHIL!) for what they are. It makes the point, by demonstration, that there is another way to use language.

By: David

David — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:40:00 +0000

@ Steve Baba, its possible that he doesn't have a clear-cut legal case for libel, but equally possible that he is instead exercising the under-used prerogative not to settle every disagreement between adults in a courthouse. He seems to be enjoying the defeat-in-public-debate model much more and its costing him a good deal less in legal fees.

By: patrock

patrock — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:28:26 +0000

"And if the case were a clear-cut as Lessig claims, Lessig would have a clear-cut libel case"

But isn't this possibly the reason that anyone is involved in this debate. It all seems as though ones use and interpretation of language differs from another's use and interpretation of language. Lies of omission, loopholes, interchangeable definition are what legal proceedings are all about.

By: Wee Willie

Wee Willie — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:11:16 +0000

Keen is lauding, implicitly or otherwise, bad research and faulty reasoning. I haven't read his book, but I am a great authority and besides, everyone knows Keen is a dick.

By: Pete Tiarks

Pete Tiarks — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:10:20 +0000

Brendon - good theory, but I think it's more that, for all he shouts about it, Keen doesn't really understand the meaning of the terms "Intellectual Property." Reading CoA, and listening to that quote, it looks like Keen just thinks it means "idea."

This amateurish misunderstanding could possibly be cleared up by a discussion with some sort of expert. You know: lawyer, legal scholar, law professor - something like that...