John Dvorak gets it wrong again

See that "Some rights reserved" badge to the right? Sure you do.

It makes what you can and can't do with my work very clear, with no costly lawyers to see, no need to hunt me down in emails or phonecalls, no sending of long-winded letters asking for permission to use slice x with chunk y for the purpose of creating 1,2 and 3. In some cases, you don't even have to let me know. You can just go do it. In short:

You are free:

• to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Under the following conditions:

	Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
	Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
	No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
• Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Good, eh? A clear assertion, and an expansion (not a reduction) of the rights already invested in my work by virtue of reducing the grey areas, especially where fair use is concerned. Most people would think this was a good thing.

Not John C Dvorak, however. No - he thinks they are stupid. In one of many totally incorrect statements, he says this licence somehow "hints" that it interferes with fair use. Guess his mouse was broke and he didn't manage to scroll down to the bottom where it says "Fair use and other rights not affected by the above", then.

He feigns ignorance of his chosen subject matter (not for the first time) and intentionally hurls out a poorly written missive, with the ever-present apologists claiming that "Hey, he's just putting out a few thoughts and generating intelligent debate. There's the value of his writing".

What, so well researched opinion and actually checking the facts first aren't as important? I guess not. I can write something that generates plenty of debate and still roots itself in things I am at least reasonably certain of being factually correct. If empty rhetoric is the best case you have for your defence, you should perhaps consider firing Lionel Hutz and taking me on instead. It makes me mad that I even have to link to you, in order for people to see what a pile of nonsense you have written about Creative Commons. The thought that I should generate some more traffic for you turns my stomach. Anyone wanting to see all of Dvorak's utterly, utterly incorrect points ripped to pieces should check out Joegratz.net. I won't bother tearing John a new one this time round. Well, not as much, anyway. But, for the record:

Your articles are a bad, bad joke, intentionally written in a slanderous, ill-conceived and poorly executed manner. They are designed to do nothing else than generate vast sums of traffic and revenue, with everyone clamouring to see John's latest hot-button sound off against the ills of society. Word up, you could do this with something that had a grain of truth in it too. Unfortunately, you choose not to. Luckily, there are people out there who will vigorously contest what you say and happily slam your verbal missives ditch-wise. I am one of those people, and I pray for the day when your spurious attempts at "controversy" wander back into the field of Spyware. At such time, I will happily put every single one of your sentences through the world's biggest papershredder and burn what comes out the other side with nothing but deadly logic, aggressive insight and the kind of furious anger that is generated by pot-boiler articles like the one discussed here.

I can't wait.