TorrentFreak Fires Back At Avalon: Substitutes Psychoanalysis for Facts
After my article of several days ago about P2P being the likely target of Obama’s White Paper to Congress, TorrentFreak bite back today. But rather than using facts or other sources to discredit the story or its analysis, they use their cereal-box degree in psychology to attempt to discredit me by saying I have “narcissistic personality disorder.” The hope, I suppose, is that this will make a more convincing argument than say, a qualified lawyer or other expert. Others on the site threaten to beat me up and worse.
Join in with some comments and let these guys know what you think. Let’s take back some public opinion ground.
http://torrentfreak.com/new-law-will-shut-down-torrentfreak-music-industry-expert-says-110322/
20 responses to “TorrentFreak Fires Back At Avalon: Substitutes Psychoanalysis for Facts”
Leave a Reply
Moses,
A good friend of mine was a DA for years and he once told me ” the way you kill a snake is to put a pitchfork in it and don’t take it out till it stops squirming”
I think you struck a nerve with this slimy creature who fears what he has coming.
Keep up the great work!
mm
look how many comments this has, then look at torrentfreak. your site is a fail sir.
That’s because the people that read this blog have a life and a job, whereas the freeloaders over at torrent freak sit around in their parent’s basement all day with nothing else to do.
Your statements show very clearly that you think that downloading is equivalent to streaming. I don’t know about “narcissistic personality disorder” (that’s for your “About” section to judge), but you’re definitely ignorant and tragically uninformed.
If you weren’t living under a rock made of your own self-worship and surgically-removed pieces of your fantastically oversized brain, you’d know that this “crackdown” doesn’t have very much at all to do with piracy, but is coming on the wake of recent “domain seizures” (a joke) in response to unofficial live streaming of television shows or blacked-out sporting events.
Pay attention.
Also, your post here reads like a 15-year-old wrote it in defense of his favorite nu-metal band or something, so there’s that…you might want to fix it up a little and make it seem less “playground name calling” and more “I actually know what I’m talking about.” Asking people to cite sources for common sense is generally frowned upon.
@abunchofgibberish
What i think is irrelevant. What he Fed, the local DA’s and the Administration think is very relevant. Just about every objective analysis of the White Paper says that the clear target of the paper is P2P. They are broadly defining “Streaming” to include any and all methods of data transmission of infringing content. I am just reporting the news. Why blame the messenger? Why don’t you go on all the other sites– by the actual attorneys who are asserting this interpretation and harass them?
Well I don’t feel very comfortable joining in a discussion on an emotional Level like some already came down to about this but anyway I still want to say I’m happy to still see someone out there daring to say what you say Moses. And regarding the facts: in the one hand I agree: streaming is not downloading but it’s also my opinion that downloading is the same as streaming. Recorded streams well don’t make any difference. But then again I’m not and never been a pro con or a admirer of restrictions, my hope is still that whenever a song gets played the artists will get payed and I dont care about any copies or downloads, in the end those are only digital files until you play them and only then they become music (Movies…) so why care about files? Streaming and playing aka using those files should transfer money not the files themselve. In the end they are only the box including the opportunity to use/play/stream the content.
Sorry one more example to hopefully make it clearer: if a movie producer owns a CD of say Bon Jovi and He doesnt USE aka streams any song of it in his movie, he doesnt have to pay the band (ok only for the CD as a product). But if he uses a song streaming it inside the movie (and the point is you could also say stream it on his website) that a truely different story, isnt it?
Moses
I am not really surprised that Torrentfreaks are annoyed at what you have written. You have accused them of breaking the law, of telling people how to get music without the copyright holders permission amongst other things. I have read that site for 5 years and I have never seen such a thing.
So I lay a challenge. If you can back up your statement with fact, if you can prove that
1) Torrentfreaks are illegal and tell people how to get illegal music
2) That reporting on p2p issues is going to be illegal
Then you have probably won but its an unwinnable battle because i believe strongly you are completely wrong here.
Just wait until Mike Masnick reads what you wrote about Techdirt. Torrentfreaks article will seem like a gentle breeze.
You didnt even spell torrentfreak correctly , im sorry but im not taking lectures from a man/woman who fails at basic spelling.
Now…Your having a go at torrentfreak why? because they have a differnt opinion from you on the entertainment fatcats that you seem to support so much.
Moses, thank you so much for being the only one brave enough to say it! I mean where does TF get off spewing all this hate propaganda about our beloved and honored copyright system?!?! To even suggest that the free dissemination of information and culture should be the norm is tantamount to terrorism, and I hope that Ernesto and Enigmax, and all of the low-brow readers of that blog are prosecuted to the full effect of the law and end up in Guantanamo Bay! For those of us that believe, no amount of innovation will ever be able to force us to change! I applaud you for your forward thinking and also for your truly humanitarian effort to warn TF and it’s degenerate reader base of the coming storm that approaches them. Now, if you’ll excuse me, my tinfoil hat has been creased from all of the fapping I’ve been forced to do with the excitement from for proclamation, and I need to make a new one.
Just incase you cant tell im being sarcastic!
“You didnt even spell torrentfreak correctly , im sorry but im not taking lectures from a man/woman who fails at basic spelling.
Now…Your having a go at torrentfreak why?”
—————————————————————————————
The words are “I’m” and “You’re”, not “im” and “Your”.
You fail at basic spelling. Congratulations.
That problem started when the US Government refused to hand over ICANN so it could become an independent international organization like ICANN and everybody else wanted.
I bet most people here dont know that they would connect to servers in the ICANN building several times a day including the root DNS servers.
You can see why the Internet gets fragmented when US policy cant leave ICANN alone.
Up to the point of seizing a Spanish domain for a service that was found to be legal in two court cases.
Does America respect the Spanish justice system? We have two examples that this is no.
The truth is they dont respect anything apart from the $
Im a torrent site owner and felt i had to make a comment , as you clearly dont know the first thing about p2p and streaming they are entirely different things.
And you generalise that torrent related news sites will close along with LEGAL music streaming / download sites and consumer help sites such as eff.org.
Do you not know that america DOESNT own the internet and that US law stops at the US borders (thankfully).
Im happy to say that im not american , i actually live in a real democracy where citizens are allowed to have a different opinon from the gov’t / big business without being labelled a criminal, you know it actually makes me laugh when i see your president on tv bleating on about freedoms and democracy , when he supports neither.
The simple truth is …no matter what oppresive laws get passed there will always be a way around them , sites will move offshore and US citizens will just go down the encryption route , its a no lose situation for p2p technology.
@twisted
Thank you for an even handed, emotion free response from someone who rightfully should be upset by the opinions it this article. It’s refreshing. To address your comments, I do know that there is a difference, between streaming and p2p, but the context of the White Paper synonimizes (sp) them. At least that’s what thelegal community seems to think. Clearly this topic requires more debate.
As for posters being removed, I’m not clear on how you can “see” that. Some posts are not approved if they continan slander, profanity, threats or other things that irrelevant. Dissent is always allowed here, if presented with respect, as you have.
I also see lots of posts being removed but that shouldnt really be a surprise considering that your american and you support a gov’t want’s to criminalize its own citizens to protect a business model that’s 20 years out of date.
[…] who is currently engaged in a bit of a feud with tech site TorrentFreak, points out that if the recently-proposed “White Paper” […]
You know, you people keep pushing, we may remember that the Constitution of the United States only says we *can* grant copyright.
We are not *required* to do so.
We still have the power to extinguish your copyrights.
Keep tightening those screws why doncha?
@ts
Well, we have another amateur Constitutional lawyer posting here. TS, the Constitution does not even mention the word “copyright.” Fool.
Sometimes I just wish the techies would stick to their own industry – which stops at the performance and distribution of music in their case NOT ownership, they’d leave behind the idiots who just want a free ride to fall on their own.
How long will it take for them to realise that this industry a) supports lives and b) isn’t about fat cats in suits, it’s about creative people who people want to hear being able to survive doing what they do?
Techies get back to what you do well: innovating and pushing the digital world forward. Let the music industry deal with the music – there’s plenty of people putting legal fights in to change licensing – including the EU itself, the public don’t need you for some righteous campaign, all you do by supporting illegal sharing of music is force job cuts and kick the people you listen to where it hurts.
/mini rant over.
I realise this may spark even more debate but as a producer, musician and music lover i see no reason at all why any other musician should be going ‘hungry’ because of illegal file-sharing. There are several conflicting studies on whether Illegal sharing is reducing revenue for the music industry but i can’t see how that even has any bearing on musicians, considering the pitiful amount they receive from record sales anyway! I work in my own recording studio which has only been set up for about a year and we are never short of business, i am also a producer and rely heavily on free file-sharing to get my work heard. I have no time for ‘musicians’ who claim that file-sharing is ruining their lives, if you were a talented and resourceful musician there would be no problem. Just ask the hundreds and thousands of successful and fulfilled musicians in the UK (many of them unsigned) and the millions in America.
No surprise here; bully tactics are nothing new. It is always easier to say some kind of blanket statement to discredit your opponent than actually provide meaningful information.