This is now a daily occurrence. Wake up, discover which lie Crispin has been told and repeated in public, all the while dodging the substance of the critique of his organisation's support for mass internet surveillance and censorship.
Who can forget the day he said that my (bestselling) first novel was a failure, and that my publisher thereafter rejected me? (All my novels are bestsellers, and my publisher just bought another one from me).
Or the day he found a hatchet-piece about seven-year-old blog post I'd written defending copyright, and tweeted that it was evidence that I didn't respect copyright?
Or this cack-handed untruth? No, Crispin. EFF is funded primarily by small-money individual donors and the odd foundation. We've also had some money come in from entrepreneurs who've made it big.
Sometimes we *sue* the big tech companies (and other big companies) and get whopping paydays when we trounce them. And some companies have charitable donation matching-programmes where they match the sums given to any registered charity.
The more interesting question is: "Who is feeding you this rubbish, and why?" It's possible, I suppose, that you have a really inept oppo researcher. But it's more likely that you're being manipulated in the time-honoured tradition of entertainment companies using artists' groups
(I will never forget when I was fighting the Broadcast Treaty at WIPO - allied with the International Music Managers' Federation, BTW - and I was being introduced round to the national delegations.)
(I was introduced to the head of delegation from a "least developed nation" in sub-Saharan Africa. He said that it was absurd that someone from a US NGO like me would be fighting against the Broadcast Treaty.)
(After all, weren't the controversial provisions of the treaty were already law in the USA? I explained that they weren't and he thought maybe I was quibbling over definitions, but as I explained that these controversial elements could NEVER be US law...)
(That they would require a top-to-bottom rework of the entire regulatory framework for telcoms regulation, he was visibly shaken. "Oh dear," he said, "I'll have to ask Mr So-and-So about this.")
(Once he'd gone, I asked another NGO rep who'd been there longer than me: "Who's this Mr. So-and-So?" and he said, "Oh, that's the head of the US Nat'l Assoc of Broadcasters. He's been advising least developed nations on how to "modernise" their broadcast policy.")
(In other words, these nations had been told outright lies to trick them into enacting policies that the NAB could never get at home. They had relied on big corporate rightsholders for technical advice, and they'd been fleeced)
Crispin, ask yourself, is this what's happening to you? I mean, it's possible that every independent technologist has said that filters won't and can't work because we're all secretly funded by Big Tech.
But it is manifestly apparent that you, yourself, are not very technical. Who told you that filters would work out great for you and your members? Is it the same people who are feeding you these ridiculous and untrue smears that you keep repeating?
Is the same someone telling you lies like "Oh, don't listen to Doctorow, he's a failed novelist, he works for a nonprofit funded by Big Tech," also telling you "These filters will work great, they're just not willing to deploy them?"
Whomever is feeding you the personal smears you're attacking me with clearly doesn't give a damn if you look like a fool in public. Do you think their scruples extend to lying to you about whether your members will thrive or suffer under #Article13?
If they had great technical arguments to rebut the technologists who say filters are a serious danger, don't you think they'd be feeding you THOSE, rather than personal attacks?
After all, even if all the libels you've been fed were true, it wouldn't have any bearing on whether filters work or don't work.
Crispin, I work part-time for EFF for a very modest fee. I can afford to do that - and pay my mortgage, etc - because I get hundreds of thousands of dollars every year from the largest entertainment companies on earth, who pay me for my copyrights.
If you think that my point of view is driven by who's paying me, you've been very, very misinformed.
While we're on the subject. I know some VERY good investigative journalists. if you want to turn whistleblower and talk to one of them about the people who've been feeding you this rubbish and have them run the sources to ground, DM me. @crispinhunt

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Cory Doctorow

Cory Doctorow Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @doctorow

Oct 7, 2018
I used to write POs for >$1MM worth of Apple equipment/year and spent hundreds of hours dealing with their service centers. The argument that allowing total monopolization of the repair process "maintains system integrity" isn't supported by the actual service experience.
It should not surprise anyone that a company that arrogates the right to sue competing service centers and thus need not fear any competition does not perform as though its customers might choose to take their business elsewhere.
There is literally no corporation on Earth that couldn't make this argument: "Why should we let farmers fix their tractors? How can we maintain their integrity unless we get a monopoly? Do you know how important the food supply is?"
Read 15 tweets
Sep 14, 2018
Giving creators more copyright powers to combat exploitation by monopolistic corporations is like giving your kid more cash to compensate for having his lunch money stolen by schoolyard bullies. They'll take that too.
Give creators 100 years of copyright, and corporations will require that it be assigned to them for the full duration as a condition of publication.
Give them the right to license - and thus, prohibit - excerpting, and corporations will take that right as a condition of access to the market.
Read 11 tweets
Sep 14, 2018
You mean, that thing I've been saying all along is true? That large corporations routinely commit copyfraud, that they act with impunity, and there there are no real remedies? And that once we create automated filters these corporations can use to claim our work, it'll be worse?
Or that you found a blog by someone whose understanding of my position on copyright is just as flawed and cartoonish as yours?
In small words, then: giving creators more "copyright" does no good if we're in concentrated markets where intermediaries (entertainment & tech companies, who have interlocking boards and overlapping major investors and are basically the same thing) rule all.
Read 12 tweets
Sep 12, 2018
Dude. They literally just voted down "freedom of panorama" (the right to take pix in public spaces without getting clearance for every t-shirt, billboard and architectural facade) and voted in mandatory filters that will block anything that appears to match a copyrighted work.
The day this goes into effect will be the last day that independent photogs can operate. Without a rights-clearance house behind you, you won't be able to post any street-scenes: riots, parades, stock, police brutality, etc to any platform.
Multiply by all the other ways that filters will catch dolphins in tuna nets: without the backing of multinational entertainment corps, no artist will be able to publish their works. What do you suppose that will do to our negotiating leverage with Big Content?
Read 4 tweets
Sep 12, 2018
In case you're wondering: the #EU just voted to impose filters on all the text, audio, photos, videos, etc you might post. If you think this will help photographers or other creators, you don't understand filters.
First of all: pirates laugh at filters. The most sophisticated image filters in the world - those used for state censorship in China - are trivial to evade… Anyone whose occupation is beating filters will beat filters.
But people who are legit? Including photogs? They're FUCKED. Filters can be intentionally bypassed if you know the trick, but if you're (say) a news photog whose photo of a protest includes a bus-ad with some stock imagery, the filters will not be able to know that you're legit.
Read 19 tweets
Aug 16, 2018
Your daily reminder that James Clapper isn't your friend: he's a guy who lied and lied and lied about mass surveillance, including to Congress, including to the Congressional committee he specifically answered to (that is to say, perjured himself).
And he used his ongoing security-cleared status to amass a private-sector fortune as a military/intelligence contractor, a role he propped up with regular appearances on TV where his access to classified data was an implicit source of credibility for him.
He's one of thousands of ex-spook, ex-military far-right jerks who believe in, and were complicit in, secret assassination programs, mass surveillance, psyops against peaceful protesters, illegal arms deals to prop up dictators, etc etc.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!