In my experience, people like this need a quick trip to my blog where their nasty geek literalism and bullying can be put on display. Apparently this guy thinks he is a very big deal, and may actually be "widely known in small circles" or maybe even an actual big deal. So what? That doesn't mean he and his friends can't be publicly and sharply criticized.
So I oblige here:
Correspondence with Jim Griffin
From: "Jim Griffin" <email@example.com>
Subject: Who are you?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:01:03 -0500
I can't readily determine your identity, which is important to me as I
consider your attack on Cory Doctorow.
When I know who you are, I may read it.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Who are you?
The real question is: who are you, and why do you need to harass me in this
My critique of Cory Doctorow is valid, I stand by it, and it is much needed.
You don't require "my identity" to consider valid arguments. If you do, I
suggest you retreat to your friends on Facebook and listen only to your
The Internet is a big place. Go somewhere else if my blog makes you unhappy.
I don't require you to read my blog, however *you* are. And I'm able to use
Google; apparently you are not.
Like Doctorow, you apparently make fees on lectures and consulting, so you
personally can afford to disseminate the gospel of "free" as a "business
model" -- if that's what you do.
From: "Jim Griffin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Who are you?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:13:17 -0500
How could following your instructions possibly be considered harassment?
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/about.html: "To get to know me write
dyerbrookME@juno.com rather than google witch-hunting me : )"
Let's be clear:
1. You insulted me with false, self-induced harassment claims;
2. Asserted I am incapable of Google use;
3. Inferred that I have a little circle of friends around Facebook;
4. Subjected me to your own "google witch-hunt" (which you ask others to
5. Still worse you suggested I support a "free" business model (I am
regularly an expert witness of music monetization for the music industry).
I like to consider the source before I read. I did you the favor of
respecting your published request that those who want to know more about you
should do precisely what I did: Write you at the address I wrote you. You
were right: Having written you, I now know all I need to know about you.
I could not possibly care less what you think, will not be reading further
anything you write and have added you to my email filter.
As you can see from his site, this guy makes his living on lectures and consulting. He very much believes in the "open collaborative tools" Kool-Aid. He's the former techologist for Geffen records. Judging from this blog (apparently summarizing a talk he did) and other writings, he believes that the music industry can't charge for content in the old way, and it has to have new models, and people have to pay voluntarily.
I like people who make those claims to be confronted with the fact that they themselves don't make their living that way, and live on consulting and lecture fees spouting their gospel about making other people live the voluntary life.
Imagine, writing a bullying email as he did at the outsite implying that "not knowing my identity" is somehow an obstruction to not taking a critique seriously.
What does he expect with a demand like this, to determine if my brothers runs the RIAA or my sister is a telecom investor or I'm related to Sarah Palin? What on earth does the little snide geek mind anticipate with a claim like this -- that they can't evaluate my critique until they "know who I am"? Um, does finding out that I'm a Russian translator living in New York City with two kids add to their appreciation of my critique, or invalidate it? Probably the latter lol.
I stand by the right of people to make SL avatars, keep them anonymous, and blog under those names.
What does a little freak like that expect, somebody is going to write back to him and grovel?!
Nope, publicity is the best weapon with a nerd like this, and I ensure it.
There's an important conversation to be had about how to monetarize music online, but it can't be likely had with him. His mind is snapped shut, and he is a devotee of the geek religion and the gospel of "free" -- except, of course for himself. If he *is* for paid content, he has enough other jargonized writings around about "open" this and "collaborative" that that he imagines that this paying is going to be accompanied by giveaways, or involve more "sharing" than in fact I think workers should be forced to do.