Declan McCullagh on politics and DMCA

[John Young]

Bear in mind that Declan has always favored the copyright industry,
after all that fits his ambition to be a star in that field, not that he
is alone in seeking media celebrity by seducing others with the
allure of attention and fame. He drops way too many names
not to come across as an accomplished, striving star-sucker.

Declan covers issues in a balanced way, so the story always
goes, though the balance is always tipped toward those he
wants to flatter -- which is toward the winners side, the bigger the
winners the more likely the scale will be tipped by Times magazine
speak of featuring the stars which mesmerize star-struck readers 
and, not least, publishers and editors and the copyright bandits
which thrive on celebrity mongering -- fabrication, gloss,
lies, deception, condescension toward the nobodies which
buy their dreck, a la Waterboy Valenti et al.

Promoting winners over losers is a giant industry, the American
way of doing business. Sorry to say, Nomen, this is not courageous
reporting, it is formulaic suck-up.

This is not to demean Declan as a person, he's "a nice guy," --
he slurs me condescendingly similarly -- only to note what he 
does for who he works for is vile, pretentious, not at all objective.
In that hired-gun demeanor he is a professional, if you know what 
I demean.




At 08:30 AM 8/20/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Congratulations to Declan McCullagh for two recent articles which
>challenge the conventional wisdom of the cyber rights crowd.
>
>Last week it was http://news.com.com/2010-1071-949275.html?tag=politech,
>arguing the futility of political participation in a world where
>government is dominated by powerful economic interests.  Instead he
>quotes cypherpunks Adam Back and Lance Cottrell to the effect that a
>better approach is to change the terms of the debate by writing code
>that creates technology.
>
>(Bizarrely, he refers to "the motto of the Cypherpunks" while managing
>to actually avoid saying "cypherpunks write code".  Maybe we can blame
>the editor for that omission.)
>
>Now at http://news.com.com/2010-12-950229.html?tag=fd_lede, Declan steps
>into the viper's nest by coming out against DMCA sensationalism on the
>part of the EFF.  He refers to "overly aggressive advocacy" by the EFF,
>and provides quotes describing their efforts as "fear-mongering".
>
>He quotes Orin Kerr, law professor at GWU:
>
>"Opponents of the DMCA want to dramatize its effects, so they want people
>to believe that the law is incredibly broad," Kerr says. "If the public
>believes that the DMCA is stopping Professor Felten and other researchers
>from conducting legitimate research, then that is a major victory for
>opponents of the law."
>
>All this is anathema to the slashdot crowd, of course.  The last thing
>they want to hear is that DMCA isn't as bad as they've been told.
>
>Again, kudos to Declan for taking a stance which is sure to be unpopular
>and controversial among his supporters.  I may have to take back all
>the nasty things I have said about him over the years.  Now let's see
>what he has to say about Palladium...