Here is a potential fellow traveller. Flash mobs indeed - they were going to take down the MSM...'member?

More bowing to Lord Google by the monocle of fascination making a backlash guruistically out of anything available:<blockquote class="smalltext">Unlike in trademark law, where a failure to defend one’s trademark can result in a weakening of the mark, failure to sue for copyright infringement does not in any way diminish one’s right to sue in other cases. Again and again, one hears a domino-effect claim from parties opposed to Google Print. I have no idea what that claim means since it is not a legal observation. However, should other companies seek to do what Google is doing and remain within what many, include myself, consider to be the bounds of fair use, then a domino effect would be wonderful. If, on the other hand, they do not operate within the bound of fair use, let’s say they propose to sell entire chapters, or the book, then failing to stop Google would have no effect whatsoever on anyone’s ability to sue this other hypothetical company. In fact, should the courts rule against the AAP, that precedent could create an even more expansive approach to Fair Use than the one presently in effect.</blockquote>One thing not noted in the exerpt from this small but earnest publisher which I have read is that the reason you sue is to stop an activity before it takes off. Googles taking of the copyrighted works of others sets a <i>business</i> precedent which, if not challenged, will create copy cats. If the world has 100 or 500 firms doing this, there is a practical dilution which the law becomes immune to stop because it effectively morphs leaving the legal right if not technically <i>estopped</i> in law then disrespected in the community to the point the law loses some strength - you cannot sue them all or they set up in Turkmenistan. It is always right to assert a legal principle in a timely manner to avoid this practical effect of delay which in equity - that sidebar to law - is called <i>laches</i>.<p>I love on the original post the use of <i>eliding</i> which means to omit and appears to be a obfuscation of the fact and a booky way to say "stuff has been removed from the argument" by one player in that debate.

Beyond irony.

Take transitory information in a malleable medium supplied by amateurs and never cross-checked for authentication, only for alternate opinion. Then publish it in a fixed format which cannot be changed and...fob it off on the third world. The dumbing down accellerates. Where else would one find this without one red flag?

The <i>New York Times</i> plays an odd role in the creation of neo-Babbitt and neo-Babbitt commodities and the guruification there of. This story is based on interviews with a large number of beneficiaries of a phenomena presented also as experts in the area. No independent assessment of this year's "Pet Rock". No wonder the Times reports a "growing numbers of people creating their own podcasts"! Why wouldn't futurist gurus say so?<p>Interesting to note my experience as an expert in beer making and intellectual property interest was the opposite as I was saying the idea of a license to "open source beer" is a load of crap.

A swift first victory against the revenous powers of blind progress as one of their own flips sides:<blockquote class="smalltext">Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies on-line, agreed Monday to shut down operations to settle a landmark piracy case filed by Hollywood and the music industry. The surprise settlement permanently bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files and requires the company to stop giving away its software, according to people familiar with the agreement. They spoke on condition of anonymity because settlement details were to be disclosed to a federal judge later in the day in Los Angeles. Grokster's website was changed to display a message that its file-sharing service was illegal and no longer available. "There are legal services for downloading music and movies," the message said. "This service is not one of them."</blockquote>File sharing illegality admission by a file sharing firm. What is that about?