That is nonsense. Experimentation has nothing to do with using other people’s works as your own. Experimenting is about pushing the envelope and moving past boundaries. There’s no incentive to create works if you are not compensated for them. It’s true that great artists engage in their work for the sake of engaging in their work, but without ownership of what they created there is no incentive to commit oneself full time to it. What could that incentive possibly be?

According to my Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition (yes, this Luddite still uses bound dictionaries), “ad hominem” means “1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.”

I expressed sincere admiration for an opponent’s intellect, and expressed sincere surprise at his failure to acknowledge that there was a counter-argument in the magazine. That statement does not appeal to feelings or prejudices, but instead is a statement of my own feeling. It is not an attack on Professor Lessig’s character, and it most importantly did not come in answer to any argument made by him; in fact, it was in response to a lack of action on his part.

Thank you for commenting.

You just can’t resist the ad hominem attacks, can you? Don’t bother denying it.

Patrick: Once again, you are spot on.

As a creator, it is MY decision when it comes to deciding how my work will be used/distributed, not that of a lawless mob.

Actually, it’s the opposite.

The more restrictive the law is, the less experimentation allowed, and the less creative one is *allowed* to be.