“Our legendary personalities are evergreen ‘brands’ with the benefit of worldwide recognition,” reads a message on the Richman agency’s website. Guardian UK Article *vomits* Where is the line drawn between “public figure” and “celebrity”? How can a dead person have an agent, particulary where there are no specific works concerned other than a sense of character? It’s one thing to insist that Duck Soup is a work that should be protected (which any more simply means controlled by whomever has the most buX0rs), but shouldn’t personalities and such pass into the public domain as well? ( boingboing : Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al )
Not this asshole again. Didn't he get spanked hard enough last time?
ReplyDeleteLast time? What are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteWhat's your objection to his argument?
I must admit I haven't bothered to listen through this latest stuff (the guys grates on me) but here's him getting torn to shreds 9 months ago.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.metafilter.com/62107/Interesting-Arguement-About-Global-Warming
OK, I read the first several screens' worth of comments there. I can see that he's oversimplifying the argument, and potentially leaving out a couple alternatives. Even so, I am more inclined to side with him, than against him.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to critique, and hard to create. This guy's trying to pose the argument in a way that even closed-minded idiots can not refute, and has forgone some granularity in the process. I'm willing to cut him some slack.
I dunno. It bothers me to see someone wrapping up an appeal to emotion and pretending it has a logical basis. His argument (at least in the first one) could easily be reproduced in a Chick tract explaining how the consequences of not worshipping Jesus are so terrible that you're better off worshipping just to be on the safe side.
ReplyDeleteGiving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps thats the point: he's trying to reach people who are swayed by that sort of "logic".
Either way, the guy grates on me...