Richard Hack 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (31)

• On the post: Is The Gates Foundation Really Looking At New Ways To Tackle Big Health Problems When It's Hiring Pharma Execs?

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2011 @ 02:03pm

  Gates Foundation is a con game

  Like most rich foundations, the purpose of it is to provide influence and control, not charity.
  
  If you look at the Foundation's Web site, you'll see that all these "huge" donations to charities are spread out OVER TEN YEARS or more! The actual amount of money doled out in a given year is a minute fraction of the Foundation's assets.
  
  In addition, given the assets of the Foundation, I recall the US government nearly removed its status as a charitable foundation because so LITTLE percentage of its assets were being expended on actual charitable work.
  
  The Gates Foundation is a stock-laundering scam. Gates can't sell large amounts of his Microsoft stock all at once because of SEC rules on major corporate shareholders. So he creates a foundation - run by his father - that he can donate the stock to. Then the foundation uses the value of that stock to invest in other corporations Gates wants to influence.
  
  It's a standard scam for the uber-rich, nothing more. While obviously a certain number of people and charities get some decent assistance, the "philanthropic" motivation is just a PR scam.

• On the post: How Cisco & The Justice Department Conspired To Try To Destroy One Man's Life For Daring To Sue Cisco

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2011 @ 05:46pm

  I'm shocked...SHOCKED!

  "appeared to involve a US Attorney leaving out key information, making blatantly false insinuations about other facts, and in some cases, what appears to just be lying"
  
  All I can say about this remark is...DUH!
  
  I was once in a Federal holding cell awaiting an appearance in court. A defendant in an earlier case comes in laughing. He says the Magistrate was skeptical about the testimony of a DEA agent. The prosecuting attorney tells the Magistrate, "But Your Honor, this man is a Federal agent. He wouldn't lie!"
  
  The Magistrate bursts out laughing. He tells the attorney, "Don't tell me a Federal agent wouldn't lie in this courtroom!"
  
  Attorneys and cops are professional liars and they do it most of the time.
  
  And this: "the police's actions 'could be compared to entering a courtroom and arresting a person during the course of his or her testimony. It is simply not done in a civilized jurisdiction that is bound by the rule of law.'"
  
  That term "civilized jurisdiction" doesn't apply to either the US or Canada... Both are fascist-corporate states ruled by people with money and power, just like the worst South African zoo state - and with worse consequences because both countries are far more powerful than a zoo state. African zoo states tend to kill only their one people - not a million people and displace four million more in countries thousands of miles from their location whereas the US and Canada (and NATO countries in general) MAKE THEIR LIVING doing that sort of thing.

• On the post: Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2011 @ 01:01pm

  If it's NOT going to be implemented...

  Sharon Corr (of the rock group, The Corrs) and her husband, Belfast attorney Gavin Bonnar, are going to be ticked off.
  
  I had a huge Twitter argument with Bonnar a couple times over IP issues. He hates file sharing with an insane passion. His wife and her rock group generally hate it as well, having served as spokespersons for the Euro equivalent of the RIAA. She even stood up and complained loudly at a meeting with either the Taoiseach or some other high ranking government official that they weren't doing enough to fight file sharing.
  
  I love Sharon for her music and generally being a nice person, but she, and especially her husband, are way off base on the IP issue.

• On the post: Washington Post Tells Reporters To Stop Engaging Readers On Twitter

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2010 @ 01:17am

  Speaking of Twitter debates

  I just had another slam bang debate with Sharon Corr's husband, lawyer Gavin Bonnar, on Twitter the other day. He had been ranting as usual about how file sharing had "killed the music industry stone dead" and other nonsense, including that ISPs certainly could track and deny illegal file sharing by their customers. I responded that he was clueless about technology or the state of his own wife's industry (she believes this stuff, too, BTW - see "Sharon Corr denounces Irish Government inaction on file-sharing", http://wordpress.hotpress.com/themusicshow/2010/10/05/sharon-corr-denounces-irish-government-inaction-on-file-sharing/). He proceeded to do his usual thoughtful responses which included calling me an "idjit" and a thief, etc., etc. I responded with links to a ton of the articles from this Web site explaining how the industry is not dying and such.
  
  The next day, still smarting from the thrashing I gave him, he actually went to my IT support Web site and quoted my pricing terms to prove that I expected to get paid for my work while stealing from artists. I explained that he apparently didn't know the difference between work for hire and a state "contract" imposed by fiat.
  
  So, yes, Twitter is hard to debate on. But if you've got the links, you just bombard your opponent with facts.
  
  Not that it does any good, of course. These people are as immune to facts as a religious fundamentalist.
  
  Nonetheless I still adore Sharon Corr! She's gorgeous, talented and nice when it doesn't involve file sharing.

• On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Confuse R2D2 With An Ad Platform? No? But George Lucas Would…

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 10:55pm

  George Lucas has long been a frickin' IP idiot

  He once argued that if you bought a lawn sculpture and then painted it, the sculptor should be able to sue you for infringement.
  
  He thinks artists literally should have total control over everything YOU pay money for, and you should have ZERO control.
  
  He's a nut.

• On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 10:47pm

  It's like I pointed out in my last post here

  Intellectual property is BY DEFINITION a coercive mechanism which abrogates BASIC FREEDOMS such as control of own's own property (by denying that it IS "your" property") and one's own person (by specifying what acts you can or cannot take with regard to things you physically possess).
  
  IP is an attempt to use state power to impose a coercive monopoly for the benefit of a select demographic.
  
  And economics has long established that ALL monopolies are by definition coercive (since there are very few "natural" monopolies, and those few have to compete with other ways of doing the same things.)
  
  And history and economics has long established that coercion in a marketplace distorts and corrupts the marketplace to the detriment of society as a whole.
  
  Intellectual property is BY DEFINITION anti-freedom.

• On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2010 @ 06:12pm

  Once again, this is about a distinction frequently not made

  When someone infringes on an IP, it removes a SALE.
  
  This is what IP promoters complain about. They lose a SALE.
  
  To them this is "theft". Except it's not. Because while someone has valid reasons to be paid by a product, they have no valid reasons to expect a SALE - which is a voluntary act on the part of the purchaser. If the purchaser does not want to buy, the seller is deprived of a sale, but NOTHING IS STOLEN.
  
  On the case of infringement, the prospective consumer of a product has simply acquired the product from an "unauthorized distributor". Said "distributor" also did not "steal" anything - they simply copied something they possessed, which the technology allows. The net effect of the confluence of technological capability and someone willing to redistribute their copied product is that the original producer loses a sale.
  
  But nothing is being stolen anywhere up or down the line.
  
  There is no difference between this situation and the situation I usually use as an example: If I borrow my neighbor's hammer to do a job instead of buying one of my own, I have denied the hammer producer of a sale. But I have not "stolen" anything from the producer because I DO NOT OWE THE PRODUCER A SALE.
  
  The essence of intellectual property is to persuade the state to coerce consumers to give a producer a sale by enforcing intellectual property laws OVER AND ABOVE the laws enabling freedom of possession of objects and freedom to use objects purchased in free trade as the owner sees fit.
  
  Nothing proves this more than the repeal of "first sale" by the recent court decision.
  
  Intellectual property is first and foremost an attempt to abridge personal freedom for the benefit of a select group. It is coercive by definition. And historically there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that this coercion has ever had a socially beneficial impact.
  
  The institution of the state is by definition coercive. In history, it has been argued that the state is "necessary" or at least a "necessary evil" because of human nature. In fact, one could argue the exact opposite - that because of human nature, no state can be anything other than coercive and imperialist. But regardless of that debate, no valid argument can be presented to justify intellectual property as anything other than an attempt to suppress personal freedom for another's benefit.
  
  The argument that IP is necessary for the promotion of inventions to improve the human condition has been shot down empirically and historically, and has no logical basis other than speculation.
  
  Bottom line: You bet it's important to distinguish between copying and theft. It's the difference between coercion and non-coercion - and anyone trying to blur that distinction (and it's not surprising it's a lawyer trying here!) is trying to coerce YOU, by fraud now, and undoubtedly by force later.

• On the post: Connecting With Fans Is About More Than Getting People To Pay Attention To You

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2010 @ 03:05pm

  Sharon Corr does this very well

  A couple years ago, Sharon Corr's sister, Andrea, lead vocalist of the Irish rock band The Corrs, put out an album. She had a Bebo page and a MySpace page and a Web site, but they were maintained by somebody who didn't have a clue. Despite the fact that Andrea is loved by her fans, her album basically bombed. I suspect part of that was because her outreach was mismanaged.
  
  Fast forward to today. Her sister, Sharon Corr, has a new album coming out next week (after being delayed for nearly a year). Sharon has been interacting directly with her fans in almost every venue. She Twitters and was voted "Ms. Twitter" by her fans in the UK. Her husband even Twitters. She has a Youtube channel and regularly posts videos and "video chats". Last Valentine's Day, she went off to London for the weekend and left a Valentine's Day kiss video on her Web site. Her Web site is well maintained. She's done tons of radio interviews and appeared on various TV and performance venues with all manner of artists including Jeff Beck.
  
  All in all, her interaction with fans has been little short of brilliant. The Corrs have always been known for being nice to fans, but Sharon has topped the band as a whole. The Corrs were never much for Internet outreach, but Sharon appears to be advised by someone more competent.
  
  The amusing thing is that she's quite anti-file sharing and her husband Gavin Bonnar (a Belfast lawyer) is rabidly so. I had a huge Twitter debate with him over file sharing at one point, which is hard to do in 140 characters.

• On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2010 @ 08:05pm

  Also, as I've pointed out many times, there is a difference between a "right to be paid" and a "right to a sale".
  
  Yes, an artist has a right to make money off his work. However, he does not have a GUARANTEE of making money off his work.
  
  Copying does NOT prevent him from making money. It merely removes a specific SALE from his revenue stream, just as if the sale were removed by someone simply deciding not to pay what he is charging for the item because it is considered too expensive and therefore deciding not to buy.
  
  The fact that if he sold only one copy of his work, and then EVERYONE copied that one copy such that he never again made a sale from that work does not invalidate the fact that no one is OBLIGATED to buy his stuff if they don't value it at the price he is offering.
  
  It's exactly the same situation as the following example:
  
  If I buy a hammer, then loan it to my neighbor to complete some work of his, I have deprived the hammer manufacturer of a sale. But I have not STOLEN anything.
  
  Even if I proceed to make in my home workshop an exact duplicate of the hammer I bought and then give it to my neighbor, I still have deprived the original hammer manufacturer of a sale, but I have not STOLEN anything.
  
  If I were to make that hammer, mark it as having been made by the original manufacturer, and sell it as such, I have committed fraud in misrepresenting the manufacturer of the hammer. But I STILL haven't STOLEN anything. Theft and fraud are not the same thing, either.
  
  So copying BY DEFINITION is not theft. The effect is merely to deny the producer a SALE, NOT to deny them any "right to make money".

• On the post: Porn Company Embracing 'Pirates,' Planning To Monetize Experiences

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 19 Aug, 2010 @ 01:09am

  Exactly what I've been telling the music industry

  Live (and "pre-recorded live") performance streamed over the Internet as a subscription service is where it's going. So once again we see the porn industry is leading and the music industry just doesn't get it.
  
  Yes, someone can record, copy and distribute the stream, but your market is those people who want it and want it NOW, so they buy your stream (as long as it's reasonably priced.)
  
  I've said for years now that the music artists should be setting up a studio with Internet streaming capability, do rehearsals a few times a week, then perform live for their fans on a weekly basis for a subscription. Reduces the need to do live tours, enables them to keep more in touch with their fans, and is more convenient and immediate than spending months producing and distributing CDs. Plus all the revenue, minus your promotion and bandwidth costs, go directly to the artist - no middleman.
  
  This is the future of most performance industries. Eventually, even TV shows and movies could go this way, once computer generation of movies in a more or less real-time way at low cost is feasible. Write a script, lay out a storyboard, generate the product, stream it live on a subscription basis, rinse and repeat. With enough computer capability, which gets cheaper every year, it will be cost-effective to produce a major production what today would cost $100 million for maybe a million.
  
  I remember reading a few years back about a female musician who played her music live over the Internet, audio only, periodically. She had something like 70,000 people listening to her broadcasts. You really can monetize something like that. You won't make the money Metallica made selling CDs, but you'll make a living.

• On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing

  

  Richard Hack ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2010 @ 02:39pm

  I've had a major argument

  with Gavin Bonnar, Sharon Corr's husband, who is a Belfast tort lawyer and rapidly against file sharing. Sharon, who is the violinist with The Corrs Irish rock group, has long been against file sharing. The Corrs themselves have been spokespersons for the European equivalent of the RIAA.
  
  I had a couple long arguments with Gavin on Twitter - which is a bit hard to do in 140 characters! He had no new arguments, or any arguments at all basically, other than accusing file sharers of "theft, theft, theft" and complaining that file sharing is killing the industry and all the industry people he knows hate it. All of which, of course, simply isn't true.
  
  There's no arguing with people who are fearful of their livelihood (or in his case, his wife's livelihood, since he's a rich tort lawyer himself.)
  
  The problem with the "theft" argument is that the promoters don't realize that they're basically conflating the notion that they have a right to be compensated with the notion that they have a right to a SALE - which is not the same thing at all.
  
  If I buy a hammer, then loan it to my neighbor to solve his problem, I have deprived the hammer manufacturer of a SALE. But I have NOT stolen his PROPERTY. He can still sell his property to someone else and be compensated. If everybody who buys a hammer loans it out, his business will be severely impacted. But is it theft? Hardly.
  
  This is something nobody seems to comprehend. The issue of intellectual property is an attempt to extend the concept of contract law over the more basic concept of property. It is by definition an attempt to control the behavior of people. And when coded into state law, it is by definition a coercive limit on freedom. One could argue that if it were done by explicit contract, it would be valid. But it's not done that way - it's done by legal fiat. I have no valid contract with anyone when I download a file. The person who originally bought the file I downloaded has no explicit contract with the author to not loan out the purchaser's property.
  
  It might be useful to counter those yelling "theft" by yelling back "dictator" since their intent is to control your behavior for their benefit without compensation to you and in the absence of any rational contract. This is coercion plain and simple as much as stealing a CD from a store!