Eye on Winer

Dave Winer waddles into the Lane Hartwell photo controversy:

I understand Ms Hartwell’s point of view. I hate it when people copy a whole post of mine and paste it into theirs. But then I grab bits of images and put them on my blog and people rarely complain. The blogosphere is built on being loose about copyright and fair use. … Bloggers are supposed to be radicals when it comes to fair use and copyright, but that generalization doesn’t work with many creative people. Hartwell’s position in some ways is like the RIAA or MPAA, who bloggers often dismiss as clueless.

It’s worth pointing out that the “father of modern-day content distribution” has used the entire web as his free stock image library for years. He’s grabbed hundreds of icons and photos on Scripting News without crediting the sources, such as this lederhosen photo that he used without credit.

Winer’s actions don’t come close to fair use because he’s not making comment on the graphics in any manner. He’s just using them as decoration to make his blog more visually interesting. This doesn’t make him a radical; it makes him a leech. The rationalization that it’s OK because no one complains is interesting. Since he doesn’t link to the creators and he hosts a copy of the images on his server, how would they find his infringement?

Dave did some more whining about Lawyers yesterday. So what happened to the Dave of two months ago?

At the risk of stating the obvious: something new happened. Most likely, Dave ran up against an unfavorable term of his mediation settlement and now wants to bitch. But let’s take a look anyhow.

A few weeks ago I found myself in a room with a half-dozen lawyers, I was the only non-lawyer present, and guess who was paying for all those lawyers’ time?

Now… his mediation was more than “a few weeks” ago, so either he’s being sloppy, or Dave has managed to get himself in trouble again. It would be interesting to know which. Also worth noting: odds are that at least one of those lawyers was supposed to be representing him. If not, he showed up to a gun fight with a kitchen knife. Big surprise he didn’t like what he got.

You don’t dare criticize them for fear they’ll send you a subpoena and tie you up in court for the rest of your life and take everything you have.

Enter: self-contradictory statement.

When I talked with another lawyer about it, in a social context, she suggested I shouldn’t seek revenge. That’s how lawyers think. I wasn’t seeking revenge (although inside I do admit I enjoy the fantasy of decapitating an imaginary lawyer). What I want to do is fix the system.

You might notice that Dave never really tells us what’s wrong with the system or how to fix it. Anything tech related and he’d have covered both of those things straight away. Instead he decided to just hurl insults. But nooo… he doesn’t want revenge.

I say that in a deliberately challenging way, because I’m sure there are some lawyers who care about the lousy way their profession deals with the rest of us.

Frankly, I think our profession does a fine job of policing its own behavior. So does congress (otherwise they’d have started doing it long ago). I doubt that Dave has made any complaints to the Bar association for this alleged unethical conduct. If someone broke into your house and stole your belongings, would you call the police, or would you go on the internet and berate society for allowing it to happen to you?

We need to reform the legal system in the US. But no reform will take place until it’s possible to take a lawyer up on ethics charges without having to be represented by a lawyer.

Amazingly, this is already possible. File a complaint with the Bar. Go to the local law library and study up to represent yourself in court. I’m really not sure what more he wants than that.

If a lawyer sues you, sometimes just saying This Lawyer is Suing Me is enough to get them to think again.

Only in Dave’s world does a law suit cast a greater shadow on the person suing than the person being sued.

It all goes back to Dave’s Grand Unifying Theory: that he can do no wrong. Look at all of his posts through that filter, and they start to make sense. Frankly, I think Dave ought to put up or shut up. Speaking in vague terms about supposed “problems” with the legal system is pointless. It’s the lazy way out. How about defining what those problems might be?

If Dave thinks his method is so good, maybe he should try going into a doctor and saying: “There is something wrong, and I think you ought to fix it.” Then, when the doctor probes for more details, be evasive and insulting. See how long it takes him to diagnose the problem.