"wants to do away with IPRs because he does not believe commercial incentives"

Who on earth are you talking about? Certainly not me.

Noel,

Seriously, wtf? You mischaracterize both my position and Tim's. You set up a ridiculous strawman and then you call it "madness of the crowds"?

"The Tech Dirt critic, a marketing intelligence consultant who wants firms to use their new products/services as advertisements to sell t-shirts, would do away with IPRs so he can get more marketing clients."

That's got nothing to do with it. If you want to assign me motives, you could at least ask me. I've said plenty of times that my position on intellectual property has nothing to do with my business. I just think it's an important topic.

Also, it has nothing to do with marketing substituting for innovation (where did *that* come from?!?). My position is about encouraging *more* innovation.

Seriously, PFF amazes me. People actually take you guys seriously?

Masnick PFF may amaze you bc we dont target CMOs.

Good to see you acknowedge that mktg is not a substitute for innovation- but your views are problematic- you still imply that investments should focus on mktg rather than new inventions.

Its funny even hysterical that your business positions align with those who want to weaken the commercial sector:-)

Noel: The debate is worthy. The personal attacks; over generalizations on people's positions and (mis)assigned motivations are not.

Anyond can clarify his/her position if its mischaracterized. On the other hand, crying ~mischarachterization~ is a way to avoid such clarification.

Noel, seriously. Saying that you mischaracterized my argument isn't a way to avoid the clarification. I did clarify. And I note that you then failed to correct your incorrect post. That says something about you.

I'm not sure what PFF's non-targeting of CMO's has to do with anything. I've already made it clear, my positions on IP have nothing to do with our corporate efforts. We don't do any work in the IP space at all. It's a personal interest, not a professional one.

By the way, I find it fairly disgusting that someone from PFF would suggest that my motives were less than pure. One of your former colleagues viciously attacked me in a public arena, saying that I wasn't worth paying attention to because I had questioned where PFF got its money from. For you to then turn around and do exactly what PFF accused me of doing is beyond sleazy. It's disgusting.

And, also, I already clarified why your characterization of my position is laughably wrong. It has nothing to do with weakening the commercial sector. Yet you repeat this. Funny that you say we're all able to clarify our positions, but then you proceed to ignore them and repeat your mischaracterization. Is this representative of the type of work PFF does?

As I've pointed out, and backed up with research, my position is about strengthening the commercial sector by having the market function properly, without interference from a million gov't monopolies that distort the actual market and greatly weaken our economy and "the commercial sector."

So, why do I expect you'll continue to tar me with that incorrect brush?

Masnick, I'll draft an update to my post tomorrow if its that important to you. I'll add something about your business and your positions being independent- however, I still find you overly focused on *new* business models without providing evidence that they would be more efficient and healthy for innovation than current industry practices. Often, this focus has some marketing bent (i mean, leveraging non-DRMd songs as advertisement, considering pirated software as advertising). Even if you feel I've misinterpreted you Masnick, there is still some basis for it.

I might add that some things that shapes my interpretation of your arguments is that you encourage piracy, downplay the importance of law enforcement, and often exaggerate the role of spillovers (that would be any positive impact of piracy).

Also- I find that you misinterpret my writings Masnick, I've often written on how patents will serve a beneficial role in innovation if they are harder to get, have narrower scope, etc etc. I've also written on the importance of fair use and the public domain. You see Masnick, IPR supporters have limits to how much they like IPRs. Calling use supporters of statism is rather extreme.

"I still find you overly focused on *new* business models without providing evidence that they would be more efficient and healthy for innovation than current industry practices. Often, this focus has some marketing bent"

Indeed, it often does have a marketing bent, because innovation is the combination of invention and marketing. So why wouldn't it? Innovation is about bringing a new offering to market successfully. That includes marketing as a component, but it's not everything. Just as the technology isn't everything.

As for "not providing evidence," I discuss the research all the time. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean that I don't provide evidence.

"I might add that some things that shapes my interpretation of your arguments is that you encourage piracy, downplay the importance of law enforcement, and often exaggerate the role of spillovers (that would be any positive impact of piracy)."

I have NEVER encouraged piracy. That would be an outright lie if you said that. In fact, I have been excessively clear in my writing: copyright infringement is illegal. I do not encourage it. I do not engage in it. My argument is entirely from the producer side on the benefits they can receive from embracing sharing, rather than fighting it. That does not mean I encourage piracy (which is a loaded word).

Actually, I should point out that I find it amusing that you accuse me of using loaded words, and then swing around with "piracy" which is the most loaded of words in this debate.

As for exaggerating the role of spillovers (which, I should note is also a loaded word that many economists have long since dropped) I'd like to see some support on that. Because from the research I've been reading, if anything, I've been rather conservative in estimating the spillover impact. The latest research I've been going through suggests the potential impact is much, much greater than the earlier estimates I had seen.

***I have NEVER encouraged piracy. That would be an outright lie if you said that.***

OK, I recall that you stated, at length, that you do not support piracy, nor have you downloaded illegal files yourself. Still, your consistent criticism of law enforcement against pirates is somewhat disturbing.

As for the term "piracy" w/r/t/ IPRs check out- Hughes, Justin, "Copyright and Incomplete Historiographies: Of Piracy, Propertization, and Thomas Jefferson" . Southern California Law Review (2007). "Piracy" is not a new term. I have a feeling we're dealing with semantics here. IP is different from real property, but the fact that IP confers a kind of exclusivity and privilege does make "piracy" a fairly comfortable term for IPRs.

***As for exaggerating the role of spillovers (which, I should note is also a loaded word that many economists have long since dropped) I'd like to see some support on that. Because from the research I've been reading, if anything, I've been rather conservative in estimating the spillover impact.***

Uhhh, who has dropped the term spillovers? Did you forget to read the recent Lemley/Burk article. Too bad, you'd probably like a lot of it. Still, this raises an interesting issue. Spillovers from piracy certainly exists (to some minimal extent), courts/law makers may tailor IP policies to give IP holders more/less incentive to enforce their IP, as well as tailoring the legal consequences for pirates, to preserve those spillovers. This should all be done keeping in mind that IP holders will *already* invest in marketing, and their presumption of the ability to enforce IP and appropriate investments should be honored.