many of your essays have an air of someone who already gets it circle jerking[1] with the other people who already get it. You do it when you talk about Lisp, and when you talk about big companies, and you're now doing it by comparing copyright infringement to "stealing smells". Its unfortunate because it builds a cult or clique of people who "get it" rather than helps to spread an idea to the masses. It's also unfortunate because you outright dismisses other people's opinions, which is arrogant, and dangerous.
The "in crowd" understands your metaphor, but to the people who matter, those who don't already understand the issue, your metaphor is worse than useless - its actually harming our credibility. Quite easy to imagine a RIAA lawyer tearing your analogy to pieces, you know, by DH6: refuting your central point. You're arguing against an opponent without demonstrating that you even understand their argument. that's, like, what, DH3? I wish you would strive to use the incredible influence you've built up more effectively, and refocus away from the startup crowd, and towards the wider audience of people who could stand to learn something from you.
I've always gotten the impression that PG's essay are aimed more at people who are somewhat unsure of what to think on a subject, who aren't fully informed and haven't reached any strong conclusion yet, and PG seeks to present his thinking and conclusions in an edifying manner that assumes that the reader can recognize and appreciate good reasoning. Writing for this audience (as opposed to targeting people who cling to conflicting beliefs) is not preaching to the choir, and is probably much more productive than railing against people who "just don't get it".
Making a compelling argument to a receptive audience. Versus: attempting to convert an unreceptive audience. Or: merely saying something that everyone in the audience already believes (which would be preaching to the choir).
Given the volume of discussion that often comes about due to pg's essays and the fact that it is rarely entirely agreement I think those essays hold a good deal of value even if they are not aimed at a universal audience.
If there's some RIAA lawyer tearing this analogy to pieces, please point us to them. I thought they worked mostly on the level of talking points, with their favorite argument being declarations that piracy has cost us $X for some large X. And Ars Technica already rebutted those figures.
But if they're making some new arguments, I would like to read them. By all means, please point us to them.
The best evidence of the usefulness of PG's post are replies like yours which (hilariously) cannot refute his points. Too many people are blindly devoted to the idea of copyright. He's not exactly preaching to the choir.
Please, refer me to an RIAA lawyer who can justify copyright in 2012.
I don't see where he outright dismisses other people's opinions. In fact, he's repeatedly said to people who disagree with him to "point to a sentence which you think is false". You will have to be more specific than that.
It's impossible to speak for someone else, but I believe pg would very much welcome someone DH-sixing him.
Another thing to keep in mind that this is not some long lasting argument that pg has with the RIAA, it's an essay on property.
many of your essays have an air of someone who already gets it circle jerking[1] with the other people who already get it. You do it when you talk about Lisp, and when you talk about big companies, and you're now doing it by comparing copyright infringement to "stealing smells". Its unfortunate because it builds a cult or clique of people who "get it" rather than helps to spread an idea to the masses. It's also unfortunate because you outright dismisses other people's opinions, which is arrogant, and dangerous.
The "in crowd" understands your metaphor, but to the people who matter, those who don't already understand the issue, your metaphor is worse than useless - its actually harming our credibility. Quite easy to imagine a RIAA lawyer tearing your analogy to pieces, you know, by DH6: refuting your central point. You're arguing against an opponent without demonstrating that you even understand their argument. that's, like, what, DH3? I wish you would strive to use the incredible influence you've built up more effectively, and refocus away from the startup crowd, and towards the wider audience of people who could stand to learn something from you.
[*] DH3: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html [1] "circle jerk" - i paused on this metaphor for a few moments, but i can't think of a better one!