Tex Arcana’s Techdirt Profile


About Tex Arcana

Tex Arcana’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 22nd, 2013 @ 5:17pm

    Re: Wait ... huh?

    It's also a crime to speak out on beating or how to beat polygraphs. Of course, I've been able to beat them since day one, without any special training, so I guess I need to be locked right up.
  • Aug 13th, 2013 @ 9:02am


    This makes the case for NEVER talking to the police, and demanding a lawyer IMMEDIATELY upon any form of "detainment" by any form of "law enforcement".
  • Aug 13th, 2013 @ 8:54am

    Re: Re:

    "It would only go after criminals, surly grandmothers, little children, dead people college students, and fax machines"

    There, that's more like it...
  • Jun 15th, 2013 @ 2:45pm



    Secret representations, not of the PEOPLE of the United States; but of a select and secret group of industries, including the *IAA's, whose sole objective is to corporatize America, and make it impossible for the c̶i̶t̶i̶z̶e̶n̶s̶ slaves to know what's being done to them.

    We are being screwed, any way you look at it; and those abomination is just the tip of the iceberg.
  • Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:37pm


    My dad did this for me when he taught me piano.

    I guess Cheek can go dig my dad up from his grave to serve him with the DMCA papers.
  • May 22nd, 2013 @ 8:14pm


    When most cops are ex-military with massive PTSD, inferiority complexes, and improperly screened for psychiatric disorders, then roided up to the point where just looking at them crosseyed will net you a round of pepper spray; then it's not even remotely surprising these kinds of stories are coming out.

    And we aren't even trying to stop it. Then again, the Corporatists in power want those cops doing exactly that: stomping the populace with their jackboots, grinding us underfoot and keeping us afraid.

    Just like their counterparts in 1934 in Germany...
  • May 21st, 2013 @ 7:44pm

    Re: No interviews

    Talk about rigging the game... Don't cross paths with the FBI, they'll just FIB(!) and convict you on a spurious "confession" that cannot be independently verified.

    Kangaroo, meet court; court, meet miscarriage of justice.
  • May 8th, 2013 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not really, no one wants to pay for low-quality videos, no matter how close to decent the quality gets.

    YouTube doesn't work everywhere, it doesn't work on all platforms (I can't watch about half the content on my iPad), and it definitely doesn't stream well on anything at or less than 6mbps.

    Unless they drop the price to near-nothing, it will fail. People will only ay once for content; and if they have cable/sat, they've paid once, and can watch again for free off the providers' sites.

    So no: fail.
  • May 8th, 2013 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re:

    This is yet again a major-league FAIL. And if they do it, they will lose MILLIONS of customers that see their ads daily, that sometimes click their ads, that sometimes buy from those advertisers. What's worse, if they do this and fail, they could very well kill their own company--because, who is likely to trust a search engine that skews the results toward the paying advertisers, instead of giving accurate results?? Bing isn't much better, but if they create the illusion of accuracy or impartiality, then people will flock to them.

    In all honesty, tho: I think someone will create a search engine aggregator, that will filter out the obvious payad stuff, and rank things accurately; and THEN Google et al will lose usership, and lose even more revenue as the advertisers jump ship. And that new aggregator will become the new google, and everything will shift again.

    Unless, of course, Google pulls their collective heads out of their collective asses, and does something right for a change.
  • May 1st, 2013 @ 6:33pm

    Re: Re: Yuppers

    Oh, yeah? My pressure cooker holds 23 quarts!!

  • Apr 28th, 2013 @ 9:21pm

    Re: I, Carmen Ortiz, am a murdering cunt.


    Awesome! Well said! I hope the slut reads this!
  • Apr 26th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re:

    Don't give them any ideas...
  • Apr 24th, 2013 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re:

    Can we PLEASE get the terms right??

    They are no longer "democrats" or "republicans"; they are no longer "liberal" or "conservative".

    They are "Corporatists", or they are "Populists".

    "Corporatists" are thoroughly in the pay of corporations, and have no desire or care to represent the actual people who elected them. They are bought and paid-for whores, and far less trustworthy.

    "Populists" are those with at least a modicum of dedication to their constituents, those people that actually pay their salaries too. They understand what it means to be a "public servant", and they work hard to be exactly that.

    So can we PLEASE get this right?? The other bent terms are too confusing to allow usage as they are, any longer.
  • Apr 24th, 2013 @ 5:42pm

    (untitled comment)

    First off, the "official" numbers are ay off: overall, the real unemployment rate is well over 25%, with many having settled on low-paying part time jobs (sometimes 2 or 3 of them, if the first employer allows them to do it), or just giving up altogether and living in squalor.

    I'm older, over 50, an underemployed degreed professional, who can't find squat job-wise, because most of the demand got shipped overseas--and I'm going on 6 years of underemployment; and I was unemployed for 4 years solid.

    The real problem is the corporations, and their political lackeys: they do anything they can to impoverish the very people they rely upon to support them to start with. Soon, this vicious cycle has to stop-- and it will take a major crash to wake the idiots up.

    Maybe THEN we can stop pandering to the 1%ers, and make our elected officials work for us, instead,
  • Apr 24th, 2013 @ 5:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Looking at it from the wrong side

    What's stupid is MAFIAA puppets with arms up their asses, moving their mouths.

    And I doubt seriously your any form of "artist", because you're too fucking chicken to use a name, instead of "AC".

    And, to elucidate you on the REAL issue here: it's not about artists getting paid--we are all in favor of that.

    What we are NOT in favor of, is kangaroo "courts" convicting people of perceived "crimes" without due process--which, last time I checked, we are GUARANTEED by our constitution; and, last I checked, the citizens of Italy were guaranteed as well.

    We are also not in favor of media companies raping the artists with convoluted contracts that leave them destitute; or producing crap media that they then try to shove down our throats while picking our pockets.

    We also despise companies that band together for the expressed purpose of stripping even more money out of those that buy said crap; and forcing "fines" in the name of "justice", which is nothing more than another illegal and unconstitutional extortion of the very people they should NOT criminalize: THEIR CUSTOMERS.

    If indeed you are an artist, and not a puppet of the MAFIAA, then set yourself up as an independent, and watch us buy your stuff, willingly.

    But if you indeed are a puppet on a string, then we will vilify you, and we will avoid buying your crap,

    Make a choice.
  • Apr 17th, 2013 @ 5:22pm


    Actually, the original spots were completely obliterated, then replaced with a completely different set of spots.

    And, either way, you just put an argument that does nothing to support the doctrine of fair use.

    So what if the person used the original as a source? Flipping the image, obliterating the original spots, creating new ones that do not exist in the original image, or in nature, makes the new image original work.

    If anything, the photographer should be happy his image was used. Should the second user have attributed the source? Perhaps. And that's an easy fix. But to pitch a fit to the point where a truly creative work was thrown out in a fit of pique?

    Sorry, he's being a bitch, and so was BMW/MINI. It was absolute genius that he came up with that, and the judges obviously agreed. But because he used an image that someone else decided wasn't freely usable (oh, gee, I guess we need to pay a fee every time we look at it, too), a specially after putting it out on CC??

    Sorry, your argument just doesn't hold water, unless you're doing your damnedest to make sure everyone pays.

    I guess that means you ARE a lawyer, given your stance.
  • Apr 17th, 2013 @ 10:16am


    The salient part of your linked article is this:

    Artists and photographers are, deep down, 90% unoriginal. We borrow each others’ ideas. We forget where they came from. We copy, transpose, modify, build on, and find inspiration from diverse other people. Much of our unoriginality is acceptably divergent, and this is a good thing. Art could not exist at all were all forms of copying verboten.

    If photographers wish to get defensive and bitchy about "copyright" and "inspiration", then they might as well throw away their cameras and give it up altogether.
  • Apr 16th, 2013 @ 4:18pm


    Oops, forgot to log in.
  • Apr 8th, 2013 @ 11:57pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's all about the money, m'lady...
  • Mar 28th, 2013 @ 10:13pm

    (untitled comment)

    Such bullshit. It amazes me how they keep trying to turn this place into the Soviet Union.

    "Spviet AmurrriKKKa" has such a nice ring to it...

More comments from Tex Arcana >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it