ASCAP Refuses To Debate Lessig

An anonymous reader writes "Back in June ASCAP oddly declared war on free culture, specifically calling out Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge, making a number of false statements about all three. The war of words continued as the three groups responded politely, pointing out the errors in the statement from ASCAP's Paul Williams. Larry Lessig wrote a blog post where he asked Williams to debate these topics, saying that it might help if they could get away from making false statements. Williams has now publicly declined to debate saying that it's not worth his time, and once again attacking these groups for trying to 'silence' him. It's difficult to see how a request for a public discussion and debate is an attempt to silence, but that's ASCAP's position and they're sticking to it."

Debates are almost worthless

[IICV]

To be fair, no debate in the history of the world has ever actually changed the truth of any matter. Arguments and legislation should be based on published literature and statistics, not on who is the better orator.

That being said, I'm sure they're refusing because they know Lessig would kick ass. His position is well thought-out and basically unimpeachable, while theirs is untenable and distasteful.

quote

[girlintraining]

First they ignore you.

Then they laugh at you.

Then they fight you.

Then you win.

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[XanC]

His position is well thought-out and basically unimpeachable, while theirs is untenable and distasteful.

Wouldn't that come out in a debate?

Also, I think you'll find that arguments and legislation have "changed the truth" exactly as frequently as debates have: never.

Idiot

[DarkKnightRadick]

ASCAP is going to become irrelevant as content producers such as authors move to distributing digitally exclusively so that they get more money from the purchase of their works.

Amazon gives authors of e-books 70% of purchase price? When I'm ready to publish I'll pay for software to produce content in a manner that Kindle users will be able to easily read my content and sit back and watch as either the $$$ roll in or the cob-webs collect (depending on if my content is any good). Either way, I'll already have moved on to my next project.

debate = attempt to silence

[sconeu]

It's difficult to see how a request for a public discussion and debate is an attempt to silence

Simple.

• War is peace
• Freedom is slavery
• Ignorance is strength

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[PopeRatzo]

ASCAP has nothing to gain and everything to lose by debating Dr Lessig. Organizations like ASCAP, RIAA, etc act with impunity because they don't have a face. There's nobody to identify - there's nobody to criticize. They like to stay in the shadows and let their lawyers do their work, and the lawyers can claim that they're just "representing their client" so you can't even point to them.

I'm sure that Mr Williams from ASCAP would just as soon never have been identified as being associated with ASCAP because now this faceless organization has a face. I'm surprised that he even made those idiotic public statements because usually those things are put forth by press releases from PR firms who can also claim removal from the actual organization. Most people don't even know that ASCAP exists, much less what they actually do. Their main goal was to create FUD about "anti-copyright extremists" and "pirates" and "hackers" and "terrorists" and then come across as an honorable organization that's standing strong against the worst elements of society.

I don't think we'll be hearing a lot more from Mr Williams, much less seeing him stand up to Dr Lessig's examination of ASCAP's statements and behavior.

Interesting worldview...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Anyone who views an offer of debate as an "attempt to silence"(barring extreme cases like someone with a particularly mockable speech impediment, for which "debate" might well just involve having the crowd laugh at his expense. I'm assuming that you don't become head of ASCAP that way, though. Almost certainly a lawyer or business type who knows how to talk to a boardroom.) must see acting with impunity, and without external input, as their right be default, and thus the idea of someone else having equal footing becomes an attack, not simple justice.

It is rather like the fanatics of various stripes who scream that they are persecuted when they are not allowed to persecute others. Their worldview is warped so far toward themselves as the default, that any attempt to prevent them from harming others is seen as an assault on their rights.

Re:quote

[David Greene]

This is only half-true, because the quote only talks about "they." It's missing what you have to do:

First they ignore you

Then you hold some public meetings

Then they laugh at you

Then you fill a room with 5,000 people

Then they fight you

Then you lobby legislators

Then you raise some money

Then you put 10,000 people in a room

Then you write a bill

Then you lobby legislators

Then you raise some money

Then you reintroduce the bill

Then you put 10,000 people in 500 rooms

Then you raise some money

Then you lobby legislators

Then you win

In other words, Margaret Mead was wrong.

no need for debate

[PinkyGigglebrain]

By choosing not to defend his statements in a debate Williams has shown that even he doesn't think they are worth talking about.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The problem with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Is it doesn't matter if what they say makes sense. They say it over and over, then they pay people in congress to repeat the same nonsense, then get laws passed based on it. It never has to make sense; it just needs people in power to repeat it like it is true on TV then pass and enforce whatever laws they are paid to.

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[selven]

Unfortunately it seems like modern politicians think that's a bad idea for some reason.

Because you can't just throw "science" or "evidence" at real world problems and get an unambiguously optimal answer. First of all, to have an unambiguously better answer you need to have metrics. And right there, the problem is already impossible - people can't even agree on what the metrics are. Some people value freedom, others value health, others value economic prosperity, others value comfort and leisure. That's the whole reason why we have different ideologies in the first place.

This is what we have here. Lessig values culture, the ASCAP value money for their members. Even with robot-like logical reasoning and clairvoyant wisdom, both sides are going to utterly fail at convincing the other.

Re:I thought

[betterunixthanunix]

The letter was perfectly reasonable at its beginning -- the man was basically saying, "My job is to promote the financial interests of these people," which is at least honest. Then he says that a debate would be a waste of time, which is a bit insulting but not terrible as far as the things that copyright lobbyists say. Then he finishes the letter by saying that the copyleft movement seeks to silence criticism, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given that he was responding to a challenge to a public debate, and is basically just an attempt to play the victim.

ASCAP should bury this guy before he makes them look any more desperate.

He's chosen to silence himself

[Anonymous Coward]

"Williams has now publicly declined to debate saying that it's not worth his time, and once again attacking these groups for trying to 'silence' him."

If he decides not to debate the matter he has chosen to silence himself.

Furthermore, Williams says this (quoted in the article, which has a link to the original on the ASCAP site):

"Our members have every right to give their music away for free if they choose, but they should not be forced to do so."

All those organizations he's talking about say "YES". None of those organizations are advocating what he claims they are. Creative Commons, EFF, and others aren't saying artists should be forced to give away their creations for free. They don't *have* to use Creative Commons or other licenses that also depend on copyright. It's a choice. Under copyright law they can use whatever damn license they please, and given that Creative Commons depends on copyright law, nothing about Creative Commons undermines that.

Naturally the people Williams claims are saying this nonsense are going to loudly, repeatedly, and publicly dispute it. That isn't an attempt to "silence" him, it's an attempt to correct his flagrant misrepresentation, because people tend to get rather upset when false words are put into their mouths.

What's next? He'll claim that other people believe the sky is green, and when they correct him and say "No, it's blue", he'll accuse them of trying to "silence" his opposing view?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[Doctor_Jest]

Of course after this little tirade, ASCAP is getting heat from its members on crossing the line between what's good policy and what's just a plain out and out lie. ASCAP tried hardball with the EFF, and it has bit them in their fat asses. They are not talking about money for their members... which is where I think the debate would gravitate if that was indeed their core position. Evidence (mountains of it) has shown that ASCAP, RIAA, and MPAA are not concerned with members' rights and privileges. They are merely interested in lining their pockets. And judging by this latest ASCAP outburst, it seems they will stop at nothing to get it.

This isn't about entrenched opinions on what the Founders meant by "for a limited time". Even the Economist said copyright was about having control over your work. It was never meant to be a property right. Yet here we are. ASCAP should apologize and learn to stop resorting to the last-ditch style mudslinging that merely underlines the EFF's position in the matter. When losing, make shit up. When losing badly, insult the opponent.

you do not debate the beast

[circletimessquare]

you kill the beast

ascap's existence is due to a flow of cash that is being threatened by technological change

so there is nothing to debate, there is only the relentless march of progress, and those who resist it because their revenue streams are drying up because of technological change are already living in denial

with denial as their logical baseline, "debate" is an exercise in absurdity. there's simply nothing to debate or talk about: ascap's position is logically untenable from the start, yet they continue to hold their position, therefore, logic will not nor ever sway them. force is the only language they know or understand. so they must be forcibly killed off (by this i mean it becomes acceptable to deny them their revenue streams, i'm not talking about real world physical violence: you have to be careful to note your words are only symbolic because there are real lunatics out there)

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[Miseph]

They both value culture.

Haha, good one!

ASCAP thinks a system that pays people to produce culture produces more/better culture.

Holy shit, you're serious... Look, I hate to break it to you, but no, they don't. ASCAP favors a system where they make money, and they think a system where they get paid more money is better than a system where they don't. The problem is that when a bunch of people who don't really produce anything (music industry executives) and make shit tons of money for it cry out that they can't afford an extra week in Cabo on their 3rd yacht until next quarter, normal people's overwhelming response is something to the effect of "go fuck yourself with hacksaw"... so instead they complain that it will be the end of Western Civilization if people extrapolate modern commodity technology to the logical end. A few of their arguments might have some merit, at least in the (very) short term, but for the most part they boil down to "if we do things differently, things won't stay the same, " which is a pretty lame argument for just about anything, if you think about it.

Re:Lessig on Bill Moyers Journal

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why political debates are a waste of time -- sure, it forces both sides to bring out their best arguments, but everyone's already picked a side; if the enemy makes their position "seem...well...reasonable", that only means they're skillful, but our guy is "clearly arguing from the high ground".

I haven't watched the debate in question, but your statement reeks of unrecognized bias -- you take the correctness of your position so axiomatically that you can't admit the other side may have a point. Don't worry, there's a capitalist-libertarian somewhere going on about how despite Lessig's debating skill, the simple truth of Gillespie's argument won out.

(FWIW, I'm not pitching the "more polarized than ever" line -- it's always been like this, and political debate has always been like this for almost all people, almost all the time.)

Not doublespeak; just depends on your perspective

[TheEyes]

When Paul Williams is complaining about being potentially "silenced," he doesn't mean in the sense of being censored, or black-bagged or something. What he means is that Lessig, by offering to debate him and disprove his incoherent ramblings point by point, is preventing him from freely engaging the modern US press.

For anyone who hasn't been paying attention the past fifteen years, there are basically three different, slightly overlapping, journalistic spheres, all of whom I label by their derogatory names:
-The "liberal" media
-The "mainstream" media, and
-The "conservative" media

The "conservative" media consists of everything owned by Rupert Murdoch, a nationwide network of conservative talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, etc), and a few attack websites, like the one that posted that doctored video that got that poor woman fired last week. The "liberal" media consists of MSNBC, a few liberal talk show hosts, and a large network of liberal websites like MoveOn.org.

The liberal media basically exists to demonize and attack everything said by a Republican or by a member of the "conservative" media, and vice versa. Neither one cares about honest debate, or constructive discourse, or anything like that; all they care about is filtering out the facts that their audience doesn't want to hear, and only giving out the information that their audience does want to hear. This is why, for instance, every Republican congressman knew about that one case in Philadelphia where the New Black Panthers were accused of trying to keep a white man from voting through threat of violence, and being let off the hook by the Obama Justice Department, but none of them knew about the Minutemen trying to prevent Latino voters from voting by pointing guns at them, and being let off by the Bush Justice Department. Democrat congressmen, on the other hand, were all familiar with the Minutemen incident, but none at all knew about the New Black Panthers.

Given this climate, it's obvious why Paul Williams would be horrified about an invitation to debate: nobody would know about it! The "liberal" media wouldn't cover it, because it would risk their audience knowing who Paul Williams is, and the "conservative" media wouldn't cover it, because it would risk letting their audience know who Larry Lessig is. That's two-thirds of the press, gone, right off the bat.

Now, you ask, what about the "mainstream" media? Unfortunately, the "mainstream" media has, somehow, decided that journalists can't--or maybe shouldn't--influence the national discussion by injecting pesky things like facts or logic. Their job is to simply report on what the liberal talking heads are saying, then report on what the conservative talking heads are saying, and then try to tie them both into some kind of "narrative". Note how "facts" or "truth" don't come into play here; that's not the point. The mainstream media is "balanced," which to them means it doesn't matter if one side is right and the other side is wrong, or one side is lying and the other side is telling the truth. Their job is to simply report, to tell the story, not to inform anyone.

These are the people who told the story about WMDs in Iraq, and kept the story going until we were embroiled in a two-front war and ignoring the front that had Bin Laden in it. These are the people who told the story about Obama's rise to power, and kept it going until he won in a landslide. These are the people who talked about the health care "debate"--note the lack of any details about what was in the bill--and kept it going until we lost all hope of true reform. And these are the people who are telling the story about how Republicans are resurgent this year, and will keep telling it until they've taken over Congress, passed huge austerity measures, and, just like in 1937 when the Republicans started cutting spending in a big recession, plunge us into a double-dip, which last time we didn't really get out of (WWII was a weird situation all around economically speaking)

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[russotto]

Unfortunately, geeks and nerds tend to not understand this fundamental political truth. It's not about what's objectively right. That has almost no worth in politics. It's about who you can influence.

We understand. It's just not where our skills lie. Which means our interests will go effectively unrepresented on every issue. Which in my mind calls into question the legitimacy of the whole process; why should I accept the legitimacy of a process where I automatically lose every time?

The very first step is to convince ordinary people that your position is in their self-interest and is important enough to spend time and money on. That in itself takes a rather large amount of skill, time and patience.

If you can pull that off, you're eligible for sainthood. Because it's not just hard; it requires a fucking miracle. Particularly when your opponents ARE the media.

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[Macrat]

That's not entirely true. For example, I could say that it is illegal to smoke pot in the U.S. And that would be true until California takes a vote this November. Then, the truth will have changed; that statement is currently true, but no longer will be.

Nothing that California does changes federal law that pot is illegal.

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not entirely true. For example, I could say that it is illegal to smoke pot in the U.S. And that would be true until California takes a vote this November. Then, the truth will have changed; ...wut.

No, the statement you made is about a law at a certain time. The law and time are both facts that need to be considered when evaluating for truthyness. When the law changes at a certain time, the facts change. Truth is truth, it didn't change, the facts did.

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[BobMcD]

The next time you go out to eat, ask the chef if you can have the meal for free. Tell him that if he's really passionate about his work he should just share it with everyone.

This is symptomatic of the problem right here. You, dear music producer, seem to equate things of limited quantity (food) to things that are infinitely reproducible (digital performances). This is simply idiotic. Think back to that chef. Imagine he can prepare a dish one time and copy it infinitely forever. He could serve one helping to every person on the globe with no additional cost or effort on his part. How many chefs would refuse to do that?

Your beef isn't with the attitude, per se. You're just not able to grasp the difference between physical resources and creative effort. This is probably simply due to your bias, as a professional in that industry surrounded by others likewise. It is very human. However the reason you're not finding a raft of sympathy outside of those circles is because it logically doesn't make sense to the rest of us. The fact that copyright even exists is a gift, a charity, as are royalties, etc. Imagine being born Chinese and having this same opinion. You'd starve...

Anyway, I'm not expecting to change your mind. And I wanted to say that your post was very well-written and hits all the highlights one would need to go for that angle. I'm just hoping to illustrate that in a world of physical reality, it falls pretty flat.

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[SloWave]

As an engineer, my work can be heard on television and various other communication devices. With shrinking engineering budgets, I wish I could depend on people being forced to send me moneys in order to pay my mortgage, feed my kids and upgrade my computer. I have a totally middle class income, and no-one is doing anything to guarantee my milking locked in users based on past work. My engineering and other friends are all professionals, and we all need to pay for groceries. The next time you use something I might of had a hand in creating, consider that you don't have to continue support my spending habits based on something I did a long time ago. If you are really passionate about doing this, feel free to donate my moneys you owe me to the EFF instead, because I do wish to share my earlier work with anyone. Also, keep in mind creativity in your industry too was freely shared for most of the history of humanity until the culture barons started to try to privatize and control everything artistic and musical.

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[Painted]

How is your post relevant? No one is asking you to give your work away for free. You're just spouting exactly what ASCAP is saying- that anyone who doesn't fully support continual expansion of copyright and restrictions is demanding that all creative works be given away for free.

While I imagine there are a few loons saying that, what most of us are saying that DRM that trumps our RIGHTS is bad; that perhaps copyright should NOT be lifetime+75 years. How do you get "give away for free" from "perhaps copyright should be only (a very generous) 50 years?"

Re:Debates are almost worthless

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Congratulations! Your pedantry allowed you to contest the OP's primary point while completely missing that point in entirety.

Sure, in the hypothetical situation explained by the OP, California legalizing pot wouldn't make it legal. So adjust the hypothetical. I could say that smoking pot in the U.S. is illegal. This is true. If a law is written that makes it so there is no longer a federal ban against pot smoking, then that statement would not be true any longer. And, thus, legislation would have changed the truth.

Did that hypothetical make the point clear to you, or do you have some other overly pedantic nit pick that will allow you to miss the context of the discussion entirely?