
Kind of Screwed - joshuacc
http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/
======
grellas
The legal process will grind you in any serious dispute against a determined
adversary.

Get a supremely optimal outcome and get the case dismissed right out the gate
because it is legally defective even assuming all the facts alleged are true?
Sticker price: $10K and up (more likely $25K to $50K to make it definitive
after several opportunities to amend are given to the adversary).

Go through discovery to find out what witnesses will say on deposition, dig
through all key documents, and then move for and get a summary judgment before
trial by which a case is tossed on grounds that the law allows only one result
based on material facts that are undisputed bearing on the legal point?
Sticker price: $100K and up, with a year or more of grief thrown in as a
bonus.

Go through trial and get vindicated by a judge or jury based on a complete
presentation of evidence? Sticker price: $250K and up, after a year or two (or
more) of wrangling.

And don't forget the appeals.

Most cases never get to trial and cost is a major factor prompting litigants
to settle even though they are not particularly happy with an outcome. Charles
Dickens, though he exaggerated for dramatic effect, got the spirit of this
right in _Bleak House_ (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce>),
and little has changed since.

This, by the way, doesn't mean that you can't defend against cease-and-desist
demands. Costs cut both ways. But it is sad how many times parties who are
right nonetheless must fold because the costs of engaging (monetary and
otherwise) are just not worth it.

~~~
imajes
It's cliché, but totally on point:

Only sue if you have nothing to lose, or your opponents are ridiculously rich.
(preferably: both).

~~~
vacri
In Australia, there's a deterrent in civil suits that a losing plaintiff pays
costs for a successful defendant. Does the US have that at all?

I'm not in any way experienced in law, but it seems like that would help
reduce the number of fishing expeditions and barratry.

~~~
DeusExMachina
This is spread all over Europe as well since it comes from Roman Law.

~~~
jgranby
In this case, Australia is a common law country. Its legal heritage is
English, not civil/Roman.

------
Confusion

      And it's worth noting that trying to license the image
      would have been moot. When asked how much he would've
      charged for a license, Maisel told his lawyer that he
      would never have granted a license for the pixel art. "He
      is a purist when it comes to his photography," his lawyer
      wrote. "With this in mind, I am certain you can understand
      that he felt violated to find his image of Miles Davis,
      one of his most well-known and highly-regarded images, had
      been pixellated , without his permission, and used in a
      number of forms including on several websites accessible
      around the world."
    

The pixelated version was incredibly appropriate for a chiptune tribute and
anyone that claims to care about art should applaud such a use of an
imitation, mockup or inspired work. I don't like artists who think their work
is so special that any change ruins it. 99.999% of people don't care about his
original 'masterpiece' in any way, but a few more may care now that there was
a different rendition of it. Artists should recognize there is a bit of luck
involved in them and their art becoming famous. For every well known great
artist, there are ten who were better, but simply didn't become known.

~~~
nettdata
And yet it should be the artist's choice on how THEIR work is used, regardless
of how you, or 99.999% of the people feel.

Personally, I find the overly-developed sense of self-entitlement to be way
more unlikable than an artist's overly inflated ego.

~~~
tbrownaw
So what exactly _entitles_ someone to exclusive control/ownership over a
particular arrangement of bits, just because they happened to be the one to
produce the first copy of that arrangement?

~~~
benologist
"bits" is a very disingenuous way to look at creative work. The end product is
"just" 1s and 0s in the same sense a Porsche is "just" atoms.

~~~
jeffool
So, if I took a picture with a magic camera, that "copied" a Porsche, and
magically "pasted" another one in reality, I should have to pay for it again?
I mean, this is already an issue with 3d printers and small items. It'll
happen with larger ones soon enough.

I understand a little under a decade of copyright protection when you had to
horse and buggy your manuscript to a printer and they shipped it by train and
boat around the nation to salesmen who again went by train or carriage to sell
it... But in the world of one-click publishing? A hundred years plus? Really?

The window of protection is now less a window, and more a gaping wound in the
side of creativity, as seen here.

~~~
ahlatimer
Even without the magic printer, you'd probably be stepping on a number of
patents by reverse engineering a Porsche (not to mention copyright/trademark
infringement for things like the emblem). You could still be found to be
infringing upon patents if you were only using the duplicates for personal use
(IANAL, though).

As far as the length of copyright (which, I agree, is currently too long), you
can thank Disney for that.

------
swilliams
What would the reaction be if, for the sake of argument, EMI took a photo that
a small independent photographer made, ran it through what looks like a basic
Photoshop filter, and slapped it on the next Coldplay album? Internet outrage
right?

And then what would happen if the photographer sued EMI and Coldplay, and won
a $32K settlement? I'm guessing the Internet would either be satisfied or
angry that $32K is too little for such deep pockets.

I understand and agree that Jay was too vicious in this, but how is he in the
wrong again?

~~~
jonknee
It's not too surprising that we often root for the little guy, but this wasn't
a Coldplay album or a Photoshop filter. This was a very limited release art
project to celebrate Miles Davis, early computers and talented electronic
musicians.

The case is especially interesting because no large faceless corporation was
involved, it was one (very wealthy) artist going after other (not very
wealthy) artists.

~~~
swilliams
My understanding of the argument is that someone, or some entity, with a
certain amount of money should not sue a significantly smaller person for
another amount of money that would cause a hardship on the smaller person.

Is there a point at which those values of money make it acceptable to take
some one else's work, alter it, and re-sell it? If Maisel had settled for
$10,000 would we be having this issue? What about $1000? Nothing at all?

Litigation is unfairly tilted towards those with money. Fortunately for Jay he
has some. He obviously felt that Kind of Bloop's cover unfairly used his art,
so he sued. I am assuming that the settlement will cover _his_ legal costs. My
wild-ass guess is that $32.5K would be about right to cover filing, and
negotiating a settlement with a good NY attorney.

So, if an artist feels that their work was ripped off (whether or not that is
ACTUALLY the case), and they have the means to do so, do they not have the
right seek litigation against the offender?

~~~
jonknee
It's not an argument, I'm just stating that it's not surprising to see push
back when a wealthy person or organization goes after someone who's not
wealthy.

Regardless of the merit (I believe it's fair use), Maisel was not harmed by
this remixed album. Purely sending a cease and desist would have done the
trick, there's no reason to try and squeeze cash out of it. That's why I think
he comes out looking like a dick.

------
ChrisLTD
It's _ridiculous_ that a photograph from 50 years ago is still under
copyright.

Copyright law is supposed to encourage artists to create _new_ work. However,
it's been perverted to let artists (but mostly large corporations) milk money
from a single cow in perpetuity.

~~~
Semiapies
I went into this article expecting to see some horrible abuse, but...this is
silly.

 _"Copyright law is supposed to encourage artists to create new work"_

By discouraging other people from reproducing their work without permission
and/or compensation, yes.

Someone got jumped on for reproducing a work at a lower quality. Whether it
was a photoshop filter and/or hand placement of a few pixels doesn't matter;
it was recognizably reproducing the work. _This wasn't some new piece of art
that got them sued_ , this was a particular reproduction of a 50-year-old
photograph.

There's a significant difference between something like this and, well,
covering a song as a chiptune. If you cover a song and try to sell that, you
have to make arrangements to compensate the songwriter or rights owner. _This_
is just appropriating an original work and hoping nobody notices.

~~~
mcantor
_Someone got jumped on for reproducing a work at a lower quality._

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's objectively "lower quality".

~~~
Semiapies
... _Resolution_ , genius.

------
tensafefrogs
Wow. To add some other interesting info to this, Jay Maisel is the owner of
(and lives in) a large building in lower manhattan 190 Bowery. If you've ever
walked past this building you'd recognize it as it's covered in street art all
the time, and is constantly changing as more art is added and falls apart.

I always though Jay was a good guy for letting artists use that space (even if
it was a silent agreement), but maybe that's not the case...

Not that it directly involves this case of fair use, but that building is
worth millions of dollars, so Jay was doing this for the sake of "artistic
purity" or whatever you want to call it, not because he's a starving
photographer...

An article about his building a few years back:
<http://nymag.com/realestate/vu/2008/09/50481/>

~~~
tptacek
The magazine leads one to believe that the "street art" isn't really condoned
(and may actually be a legal hassle for him), it's just inevitable in that
area of Manhattan.

Gruber made, I think, a somewhat asinine point about this being an example of
how spectacularly well-off Maisel is and how much of a dick that makes him for
enforcing his IP rights. But Maisel bought the place for a pittance in the
'70s and doesn't collect rents on it. I'm sure he's much better off than Baio,
but he's not a mogul.

~~~
jonknee
He could be a mogul though, that building would sell for many tens of
millions. He's a very wealthy man.

~~~
ChrisLTD
That's exactly right. Owning a lot of valuable "stuff" makes you wealthy even
if you don't have a lot of cash.

~~~
tptacek
I agree that he's wealthy.

------
SoftwareMaven
I know this will be an unpopular viewpoint here, but the pixel representation
looked _really_ similar to the original, to the point that I wouldn't be able
to tell the difference at 5 feet.

I appreciate what the author was trying to accomplish, and my geek side
totally understands the transformative nature, my photographer side thinks it
is too close, especially for a commercial work.

I don't think this was a case of "Internet entitlement", but rather a case of
two cultures clashing, which is unfortunate, because the cover fit the album
so well.

~~~
Tiomaidh
I agree entirely. I've seen some remarkably creative, unique, quality pixel
art, but this was not it. When I saw it, my first thought was, "Well, I guess
it was kinda creative to use a cross pattern on the tie instead of
diamonds..." Apart from that, the only difference is the resolution.

------
jordanb
It strikes me that very few people would have seen the remixed artwork had
Maisel not insisted on extracting his "pound of flesh" from Andy. Now it's
going to be spread all over the internet -- along with the story of Maisel's
self-righteous ego.

Could this be a new variation of the Streisand Effect? Lawyering up on some
inconsequential copyright violation and getting your poor behavior broadcast
across the entire internet? Should it be the Maisel Effect or does Sony
already have trademark?

------
pinko
The "extra credit" question at the end is a fascinating one, I think. I would
/love/ to hear the opposing side's answer, since we know the first image is
not acceptable to them and presumably the final image would have to be.

~~~
skue
Well, just because it's hard to decide exactly where to draw the line doesn't
mean he can't cross it. I actually had the opposite take on this question. As
I read, I wondered where the author would draw the line -- a grayscale
version, one with pixels half as small as his, a 16-bit version? He didn't
include intermediate images between his and the original, just between his and
the extreme.

The truth is that his version just wasn't that different than the original
iconic image. He used the image in exactly the same context, derived value
from the similarity (that was the whole point), and derived revenue from the
sales. So how is this okay?

~~~
zmmmmm
> I wondered where the author would draw the line

I wondered the same thing. For example, what if I took his 8-bit music and
painstakingly recreated by hand a 4 bit version by exactly copying the notes
from his version. And what if that started appearing all over the internet and
swamped the references to his own work? I think he'd be pissed off.

I feel bad for him because he _did_ go out of his way to do the right thing on
all other counts and this was an oversight - receiving a $32k punishment for a
simple mistake is a tough break. However from his description he knew up front
he was trading on a very fluid definition of fair use and he had to know it
was a risk.

------
figital
Now you'll be sued by Yahoo: <http://www.delicious.com/favicon.ico>

~~~
Kwpolska
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality> He willn't.

------
jellicle
Every time copyright comes up, there are always small, independent
artists/programmers/writers who chime in and say "I love copyright! It
protects me!" and every time I point out, no, actually, you only get screwed
by copyright maximization.

I want to forcefeed this article to all of them.

------
noahc
Would have putting this project into its own LLC (or other business structure)
have been beneficial in anyway?

------
jianshen
I've always been curious about how many Etsy-type stores sell video game
trinkets referring to classic video games without asking for permission from
the original game makers. Somebody recently told me that the general rule is
"if they havent't made a similar product in the market, then go right ahead",
which didn't comfort me much.

Are there any landmark cases that have set good precedence for fair use online
beyond allowing for parodies of works?

------
uptown
So he agrees to a settlement where he pays a fine, and agrees to never use the
artwork again … and then he goes and uses the same image as well as a variety
of other variations of that image as part of his blog-post on a website at
least partially supported by ads?

~~~
ceejayoz
> (Note: This post was reviewed by both my and Jay Maisel's legal counsel.)

------
6ren
It's unpopular, but I tend to side with the creator in copyright cases. I like
creators. But in this case, they're both creators.

One point: I think a mechanically produced low-resolution version of the image
would not be "transformational". The image here does look mostly like that -
an exception is the tie, which is rendered as if flat, to preserve the
pattern. I think if all or most or enough of it was like that - a sort of
cubist version - it would be transformational.

It really sucks to pay tens of thousands of dollars. And the experience itself
sucks even more. The guy should have just got an injunction, not damages etc.
Though I guess, many had been sold already - it was too late to prevent the
problem. The only justification I can think of for the artist is to cover his
own legal costs. I wonder if he would have just asked Maisel to stop, with no
lawyers involved, if he'd known in time? OTOH, Maisel firmly believes he was
in the right - so I also wonder if he _would_ have stopped? Maybe lawyers -
and their costs - _had_ to be involved

------
marckremers
That's your new cover right there: <http://marckremers.com/hn/md.png>

------
afterburner
I wonder here if a "loser pays" rule, where the loser pays the other party's
legal bill in part or in full, would have encouraged the author to pursue his
defense longer.

~~~
akronim
I'm guessing he _did_ pay.

~~~
afterburner
He _settled_ , and he did so because of his rising legal costs, which is to
say even if he won he would still pay those large legal costs. Under loser-
pays rules, if he'd pressed on and won, he would _not_ have paid his legal
costs, the other guy would have covered them.

~~~
akronim
No. Once his own costs reached a limit where he had to settle, the other side
would have had similar if not greater legal costs racked up. Continuing at
that point is a double or nothing bet, which might make sense if the odds are
in your favour (i.e. you think you'll win) and you can diversify over many
such bets. But for a single individual in a single case, it's a huge risk.

~~~
afterburner
The other side was rich. The defendant was not. Don't you think that makes a
difference? They weren't on equal footing, that's the _whole point_.

------
natural219
This is way off-topic, but that last frame of the extra credit looks like a
beautiful color scheme for a website. Not that I'm going to steal it, you
know, or anything..

~~~
hammock
That inherent beauty and balance which you pick up on is a part of why the
original photograph is such a great one.

~~~
Lagged2Death
Speaking as an amateur photographer, that strikes me as ridiculous.

Look what happens if you reduce the original picture to four pixels
algorithmically: <http://i.imgur.com/q2z3w.png>

Point being, the final four-squares image in the pixel series bears _no
relationship at all_ to the original photograph beyond a color scheme which is
only reminiscent of (not identical to) the original. And the color scheme
wasn't the original photographer's invention, anyway.

If there's any "inherent beauty" or "balance" in that last picture, with just
four squares of color, it was put there by the artist who made the series of
pixel versions.

~~~
hammock
I was referring to the colors in the original picture, not the four-square
thing. The four-square is merely a distillation of the original photo (and no
it is not algo-correct but who cares?)

------
gallerytungsten
You can read the seeds of the downfall in his own words:

"I went out of my way to make sure the entire project was above board,
licensing all the cover songs from Miles Davis's publisher..."

All well and good; or mostly well and good, as he didn't seek to license the
cover shot. Therefore, the "entire project" wasn't "above board" and the
statement above is disingenuous. So why didn't he try to license the cover
shot? Apparently, he thought that wasn't necessary. Leading to this
conclusion:

"If you're borrowing inspiration from any copyrighted material, even if it
seems clear to you that your use is transformational, you're in danger. If
your use is commercial and/or potentially objectionable, seek permission."

As a visual artist, I don't like getting ripped off. It's happened any number
of times, on a small scale. So I can sympathize with Maisel, even if he comes
across as a hardass. I can also sympathize with Baio, but not as much, because
he explains pretty clearly how he did it to himself.

I should also note that the US Congress ratified the Berne Copyright
Convention, which includes protection of the "moral right of the artist." This
includes explicit protection against someone else modifying one's work.

One person's "transformation" is another's "mutilation."

~~~
amirmc
_So why didn't he try to license the cover shot?_

Because he believed (and still believes) that it was fair use: "My lawyers and
I firmly believe that the pixel art is 'fair use' and Maisel and his counsel
firmly disagree."

~~~
natch
Even though I also believe that it is fair use, I would still defer to the
artist's judgment on this, because it is their right to decide where the line
gets drawn, not mine. That's why it's smart to ask for permission for these
kinds of things.

Two sides disagree - the tiebreaker should be the fact that one side created
the original work on which the clearly recognizably derived work was based.
That side gets more weight.

~~~
jbellis
> it is their right to decide where the line gets drawn

No, the whole point of fair use is that certain uses are protected EVEN IF the
artist doesn't like it.

------
aptsurdist
A couple little images that are hopefully a show of support:
[http://aptsurdist.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/a-story-by-
waxy-o...](http://aptsurdist.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/a-story-by-waxy-org-
kind-of-screwed/)

------
mgeraci
For what it's worth, if any of you haven't heard Kind of Bloop yet, it is
fantastic. Seems like HNers are basically the target market for it, too.

Coming from knowing Kind of Blue very well, it's fascinating to hear what
other people take from Miles' songs, and I've caught things from Kind of Bloop
that I had never noticed in the original. Highly recommended.

------
Produce
Anyone who's ever created anything knows that it has little to do with money
and everything to do with love. The love of the action, the love of seeing
other people appreciate it and the love of self-expression. Copyright enforces
monopolies, it does not protect the ability or motive to create.

------
BasDirks
When you sell things make sure they are yours, or you'll get burned by the
decadent dinosaurs they belong to.

------
Spines11
It sure seems like fair use to me, especially since he had his friend draw it,
rather than deriving it from the original by putting the original through a
pixelating program or something.

It's sad that since the potential losses of going to court are so high, most
people have no option other than to settle.

~~~
Fooman
Just because a reproduction is by hand versus machine doesn't change the fact
that it is a copy.

~~~
CamperBob
What are your thoughts on the question at the bottom of the blog entry, where
he gradually reduces the 'copy' to a 2x2-pixel mipmap and asks where the
bright line of copyright should be drawn?

~~~
varjag
Reductio ad absurdum. Despite the Latin name, it's not a proof technique.

~~~
ajuc
Yes it is.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum>

Examples in math abounds.

~~~
varjag
You live and you learn. I only knew it as proof by contradiction, didn't
realize it's actually the same thing.

------
kanamekun
Andy could do a new Kickstarter to fund a short documentary about digital
reinterpretations of copyrighted works. The profits could be used to raise
money to pay off the settlement.

If you're reading this Andy: just make sure that you don't use the same image
in your documentary! :-)

------
JacobIrwin
Valid point are made throughout. I suppose we must keep in mind the balance
that must be maintained:

1.) Protecting the rights of artists - those who dedicate their resources to
CREATE

2.) And along the same lines, offering the freedom of expression to newcomers;
re-creating art through new mediums.

------
andrewf
Is anyone brave enough to put the most-degraded image (the four squares) on a
tshirt?

------
njharman
Definitely seems clearly to be a derivative work and a copyright violation.

~~~
wnoise
Yes, it's clearly a derivative work. That doesn't necessarily make it a
copyright violation. My reading of the fair use exceptions make this clearly
not a copyright violation. The problem is that you can't know for certain
until a judge agrees or disagrees.

The guy folded, yes, but not because he thought he would lose, but because
even fighting and winning would be too expensive.

~~~
njharman
Read my original "... derivative work and copyright violation" as two distinct
statements not cause and effect.

Looks to be to be clearly a derivative work and clearly a copyright violation
based on it not meeting any fair use requirements.

~~~
wnoise
There are no specific requirements to be considered fair use. There are four
factors that are weighed: the purpose and character of the new work, the
amount copied from the old work, the impact on the market for the original
work, and the nature of the old work. None of them are binary yes/no
requirements.

The purpose of the new work is commercial (point against fair use) but it's
also a transformative commentary on the old work, bringing new aesthetics to
it (point for it). (In fact, one of Maisel's complaints seems to be that it
has been transformed [1]). The amount of the old work used is the entire work
(point against it). The impact on the market for the old work is minimal --
it's not an adequate substitute (point for fair use).

The final factor, the character of the old work is a factor that is very hard
to predict how a court will analyze. One common distinction is "fact or
fiction". A photograph of person is closer to the factual category than
fiction, though the category division doesn't make much sense to apply here.
It is well known and iconic, so this use doesn't "preempt" the first public
presentation, which some courts have considered as relevant. Overall, I'd say
this factor argues in favor of fair use, though not necessarily strongly.

It clearly meets _some_ fair use factors, contra your claim. Enough? Well, as
I said, that's not going to be determined outside a courtroom.

[1]: Maisel told his lawyer that he would never have granted a license for the
pixel art. "He is a purist when it comes to his photography," his lawyer
wrote. "With this in mind, I am certain you can understand that he felt
violated to find his image of Miles Davis, one of his most well-known and
highly-regarded images, had been pixellated, without his permission, and used
in a number of forms including on several websites accessible around the
world."

------
smackfu
Maybe if it wasn't also being used for an album cover it would have flown
under the radar more. Also using photos as your source material gets you more
attention since photographers are constantly having to track down copycats.

------
VMG
mirror?

~~~
Stwerner
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy&...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&authuser=0&biw=1440&bih=805&source=hp&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwaxy.org%2F2011%2F06%2Fkind_of_screwed%2F&pbx=1&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwaxy.org%2F2011%2F06%2Fkind_of_screwed%2F&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=656l3763l0l7l5l0l0l0l0l258l810l2.1.2l5)

------
puredemo
It was fair use and you shouldn't have settled. Simple as that.

------
Fooman
If I took his album "Kind of Bloop" and compressed it by 50%, could I start
selling it as my own? Andy sez that is cool.

I don't see Andy's side at all.

The artwork is a copy, used for commercial purposes and without permission.

Copyright restricts copying. This isn't fair use. It isn't a parody or an even
an homage – which can blur the line.

~~~
nollidge
> If I took his album "Kind of Bloop" and compressed it by 50%, could I start
> selling it as my own?

Not the same thing at all. Look closer, like at the tie. They didn't just
reduce the color palette and resolution. He describes the process of creating
it:

> I tried to draw it myself, but if you've ever attempted pixel art, you know
> how demanding it is. After several failed attempts, I asked a talented
> friend to do it.

------
th0ma5
At $8300 a month for <http://decknetwork.net/> advertising, it is compelling
that this sort of content can both 1) have this kind of viral platform for
current issues surrounding intellectual property as it is now and 2) allow you
to support and/or be complicit in the ongoing battle.

~~~
roel_v
I'm not getting it, what's the connection between that website and the post?

~~~
th0ma5
That is the ad network for the site.

~~~
roel_v
OK so I'm dense I guess, but how does that relate to your two points? Is the
OP more or less credible for using that ad network? I assume you feel less
somehow?

~~~
th0ma5
No no no, Andy is _amazing_ and does wonders for promoting the interesting and
relevant out on the net _every day_ ... I'm just trying to bring up the point
that he has an art, he is paid for that art, and I think that's a subtly in a
lot of fair use issues. Arguably the iconic nature of the photograph was _at
least in part, because of there being sponsorship of the site_ capitalized on.
It's fair use, I'm sure, or at least it should be, I'm not a lawyer... the
point I guess I'm making is what I posted which is to elaborate 1) that money
is changing hands during these publishing acts 2) you can support this sort of
fight or possibly be complicit if it is not deemed a fair use, and to me
that's just a weird spot to be in, and I wonder what those lines are, or what
they should be, or some way to codify fair use, or a way to codify that it
shouldn't be codified, or some way to monetize the problem, and hence
conversely a big part of that is that fair use should be _incredibly clear_ in
cases where there is no profit motive, but this is a sponsored site, so that
specific aspect of my own inner debate doesn't apply, and really should it
make a difference?

~~~
sorbus
Wait, so what does the ad network have to do with the fact that he's selling
an album on a website with no advertisements?

~~~
th0ma5
I see advertisements on his website, perhaps you run an adblocker or
something? Specifically I see an ad for an upcoming conference. Plus the
selling of it then I guess gets to the heart of the transaction point anyway,
I thought the album was free.

~~~
sorbus
He's selling the album on another website - there's a link towards the end of
his post ( <http://kindofbloop.com/> ). I admit that I do have an adblocker,
but I still don't see how it's relevant that he has advertisements on his blog
- unless you're saying that he's profiting off this blog post, and that that
affects his opinion?

