Meet Jim Griffin, Music Mogul

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" <griffin@onehouse.com>
To: <dyerbrookme@juno.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.

Thanks,

Jim

From: dyerbrookme@juno.com [mailto:dyerbrookme@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:21 AM
To: griffin@onehouse.com
Subject: Re: Who are you?

The real question is: who are you, and why do you need to harass me in this
manner?

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
little circle.

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.

Prokofy

 

From: "Jim Griffin" <griffin@onehouse.com>
To: <dyerbrookme@juno.com>
Subject: RE: Who are you?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:13:17 -0500

Prokofy Neva:

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
spare you);

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.

Good riddance,

Jim Griffin

***

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.

 

Comments

[Beyers Sellers]

"Nope, publicity is the best weapon with a nerd like this, and I ensure it."

Hmmm... really?

(In case the embedded link didn't work, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html?pagewanted=all).

[Prokofy Neva]

Um, big fan of Jim's, are you Beyers?

Fighting back and exposing bullying geeks isn't itself bullying, Beyers, but then, I wouldn't expect you to understand that nuance, not the way you and Jenzaa run Metanomics, being sure not to moderate somebody with a NASA project that tells me to stuff my blog up my ass because of a paragraph of criticism about this NASA-branded project (!), but then telling me to can it.

As for the "bully pulpit" of a negative advertising ensuring traffic for some sleazy eyewear place, that hardly compares to a blog that is critical of ideas. I'm not selling anything, and traffic is immaterial. And that's obvious, to anybody who isn't trying to score points.

That you can't tell the difference between me and the eyewear bully trying to force negative comments to drive traffic to his site (weird, but it works apparently) -- lets me know your level of intelligence:

Low.

[Prokofy Neva]

Not to mention that he approached me first, with a rude letter, unsolicited, so if anything, he's using the bully technique to drive traffic to his site. I merely push back.

That's so obvious.

How can someone be a professor at Cornell and be so obtuse?!

[Melissa Yeuxdoux]

"You don't require "my identity" to consider valid arguments."

That's hilarious; the whole point of the ad hominem fallacy, your first and last resort, is to deny the validity of an argument precisely because of who makes it.

[Sean Williams]

Thanks for the laugh and further evidence of your inability to function in a normal society Catherine.

Knowing the identity of the person making the sort of arguments you make helps one to consider exactly what parts of the argument have come from real research and actual thought as opposed to preconceptions, lack of knowledge, a distinct unwillingness to learn, and the sort of visceral hatred you yourself showcase at every step when you "critique" anything that does not fit into your world view.

You responded to a perfectly civil e-mail with bile and your usual bullshit and hatred. THAT is what is clear to any free thinking person out there.

@Melissa: Sadly, such a tactic is one that Catherine engages in all the time. She actually believes it to be part and parcel of real debates.

Such a motive is currently missing from the e-mails she has placed here on her blog. The person she was responding to has simply dismissed what she has written on a very simple basis: The writer is not objective and is incapable of reasoned debate.

[Prokofy Neva]

Melissa, you're unable to think beyond 0/1.

It is true that you do not require the information about a person to validate their argument.

It's also true that information about a person's argument can indeed invalidate their argument. I'm a big believer in accepting the ad hominem attack as lawful.

Both are true.

But I don't expect you to be able to wrap your tiny geek brain around these things.

There's a subtle difference here between *requiring* identity to validate and *invalidating* with identity.

Oops, you missed it.

[Prokofy Neva]

"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."

Anyone who can read these two lines and not see the arrogance, manipulativeness, bullying and sheer assholery involved is not capable of higher reason, I guess. It's all pretty obvious.

[Sean Williams]

"Anyone who can read these two lines and not see the arrogance, manipulativeness, bullying and sheer assholery involved is not capable of higher reason, I guess."

No Catherine, anyone who reads those two lines and sees what you see is incapable of higher reasoning and quite frankly jumping at shadows.

"Higher reasoning" does not see what is not present nor does it seek to impose such an unhealthy view on others as "normal" or to masquerade as "higher reasoning".

Not that I expect you to get such a concept: You are, after all, someone who sees such things in something as utterly simple and polite as a hello from just about anyone.

[Darien Caldwell]

His words seemed pretty snarky and arrogant to me. But it is the Internet. Maybe to him that's being polite.

In my book, a polite request would have gone like this:

"Hi, I came across your disagreement with Mr. Doctorow, and I was wanting to know more about you and your thoughts on the subject. But I can't seem to find any information about you. Would you care to talk about the subject more?"

Or something like that. But even as I wrote the words above, I realized how ludicrous it was to say you couldnt' find any information about Prokfy. He may as well have said he couldn't even find his nose on his own face. It was a troll, no doubt.

[Beyers Sellers]

"I'm not selling anything, and traffic is immaterial."

I wasn't alluding to your traffic, but to his. You write a critical post, his google rankings go up. I guess it wasn't clear that I am comparing your target to the sleazy eyeglass dealer, while you are the dissatisfied customer who raises his profile by complaining.

The NYTimes article should make you wonder in what way you have punished him.

[Beyers Sellers]

I don't know anything about Griffin...my only point was that bad publicity is not necessarily a way to punish him. I guess my reference to the eyewear bully was too oblique. I am comparing Griffin (not you) to the eyewear bully and comparing you to the customer who, by complaining, just raises his profile. I tried to clarify earlier today, but it must have gotten trapped by the spam filter.