Henry Emrich 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (145) comment rss

  • On the post: Confusing Economic Factors With Moral Ones; Explaining Economics Is Not Anti-Intellectual

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2010 @ 02:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: oh and as i said about hammers

    What he's doing, is pretty clever, actually:

    IP apologists love to do specious comparisons between intellectual "objects" and physical objects ("you wouldn't steal a car...etc"). What he's doing, is basically taking them at their word, by illustrating the real consequences of applying the (nonsensical) thinking used to justify "Intellectual property" to another realm of equally-creative activity -- the supply/manufacturing chain involved in manufacturing a hammer.

  • On the post: Digital Britain Minister Insists No One Is Creative If They Don't Earn Money

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2010 @ 05:48pm

    Re: Re:

    "Just what the words mean".

    Who created the catagories, and decided that they should be mutually exclusive?

    In other words, is your quibble "descriptive" (in that you're discussing how the majority of people use the two words) or "prescriptive", in that you believe that the two mutually-exclusive categories *designated* by such words, have some sort of empirical merit?

    It's "hard to tell the difference" between the two, because ultimately there *is* no difference. Under the old (dying) RIAA-style corporate paradigm, the *sole* source of revenue for even so-called "professional" musicians was never *solely* the music. Everything from T-shirts and memorabilia, to product endorsements represented a "stream of income".

    So the claim that the status of "professional" ever required that one's "profession" was *ever* the sole revenue-stream, has always been specious.

    Funny, with all the negative connotations that the corporate megaliths/their apologists tie to the idea of "patronage" (whatever form it takes), at base, their business-model was *all* about acting as their contractees "patrons" -- and taking the lion's share of any potential financial returns.

    My point was, that if the mark of a "professional" is that one's *sole* source of income be related to a single activity -- or class of activities -- then there have *never* been "professionals", of any kind.

    There may have been *primary* areas of relative specialization, but to the extent that, for example, Doctors dealt in real-estate, or any other income-generating actitvity (even "on the side"), it neccesarily follows that the practice of medicine was *never* their SOLE source of income.

    So why do *some* musicians/authors scoff at the notion that multiple streams of income should be unneccesary for *them*? Is it because their present patrons (the multi-national corporate media megaliths) have spent decades training them to implicitly *or explicitly* view themselves as an "elite" group? I'm pretty sure that has *something* to do with it.

  • On the post: Digital Britain Minister Insists No One Is Creative If They Don't Earn Money

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2010 @ 01:43pm

    This is what happens when creativity is allowed to become a specialist "profession", separate from the culture surrounding it (and making it possible.)

    We've just gone through nearly a century where the model was:

    1. A small elite of super-rich "celebrities" about whom you couldn't help but know.

    2. A much larger non-elite of artists/creative folks who wwere not motivated *exclusively* by the financial or "fame" attendant to #1 above.

    3. A small sub-set of non-"Celebrities" who nonetheless aspired to/lusted after the "celebrity" lifestyle relentlessly pimped by the beneficiaries of #1 above.

    4. The rest of the populace, who were relegated to the status of mere "consumers" -- as opposed to PARTICIPANTS --- in the culture which surrounded them.
    The "consumer" was merely required to pay whatever the Elite could gouge price-wise, and passively accept any/all restrictions the Elite could manage to buy/bribe from their cronies -- whether they took the form of ever-longer copy"right" terms, more draconian abrogations of "fair use", etc.

    The *real* danger posed by the Internet, Creative commons, remix culture, etc. -- is that in an environment of ubiquitous creativity ("User-generated content", remixes, mashups, etc.) the specious distinction between "professional" artists and "amateurs" doesn't make any sense, and the only way they can retain such a specious dichotomy is by defining it all in terms of whether you get "paid" or not. (Can't really claim that "professional" musicians draw *all* of their income from music, either, since they sell T-shirts and fan memorabilia and such.)

    Interestingly, with the advent of micro-payment or any of the other business-models Masnick and others have been highlighting, it will become *much* easier to "get paid" for participating in culture -- with all that such mass participation implies. (The "new paradigm" won't really *have* the "big megaphone"-type celebrities, so the mindless levels of opulence -- the "celebrity lifestyle" -- probably won't be possible.

    But, personally, If 100 artists can manage to get 20,000/yr. where 1 "mega-star" got 2 million -- I'd consider the culture *and* creators -- to be far "richer".

    Awaiting TAM's predictable defense of the "celebrity lifestyle", or denunciation of "remix culture" as uncreative, or some other specious nonsense...

    (Maybe we'll be lucky, and find out he spilled his "morning coffee" on his computer....)

  • On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2010 @ 07:57pm

    Re: Copyrights Should be Protected

    No, Copy"right" needs to be understood as the *expressly limited monopoly PRIVILEGE* that it IS. Until, and unless, you start from that basis, you inevitably the situation in which we find ourselves today: ever-lengthening terms, ever more draconian efforts at "enforcement", and --- MOST importantly -- increasing damage to the culture at large.

    The *Public Domain* is the only thing in need of "protection". Copyright monopolies are, at absolute most charitable assessment, a "neccesary evil" (and even *that* is debatable.)

    If any of those basic truths "offends" any monopolist or fellow-traveler, then ultimately, that's just too goddamn bad.

    Personally, I find runaway IP "law" bought by corporate lobbyists, via extremely-secretive "treaties" to be really, REALLY "offensive".

    But hey, ultimately, we *deserve* the sort of legal system we permit, runaway corporate misconduct included.

  • On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2010 @ 07:51pm

    Re: Re: Change we can believe in

    Sam's "interests" actually lie squarely with the copyright-reform/abolition side of the equation, as I've said repeatedly.

    See, "Sam" is some kind of fashion-designer/lighting guy (I've never quite figured out which -- wouldn't even give a shit except for the fact that he had a tantrum over on p2pnet about how he and I are both from Pennsylvania, but he "made it out of there", or some elitist bullshit. This was also during various exchanges where he couldn't resist taking pissy little pot-shots at my wife, my cats, his presumption that the only reason I give a shit about copyright reform is because I'm some sort of un-creative boob. (Or, "shop-lifting pottymouth" -- which is also why I tend to insert the phrase "two liquidy shits" into anything directed anywhere near him).

    Anyway, in among his maudlin tantrum, was a bunch of crap about how, even though he wholeheartedly supported anything and everything the RIAA and other corporate lobbying organizations did, he was "no friend" of them, because every time he wanted to use music in his fashion-shows, they would "extort" him for the privilege.

    Well, any halfway honest or sane person would realize that a drastically shorter Copyright term would put more current music out of reach of the RIAA, providing "Sam" a larger pool of "cultural content", which they wouldn't be able to "extort him", whenever he used it.

    Unfortunately, as I've learned from repeatedly having the same discussion with "Sam" (and watching *others* on various sites debunk his jabbering repeatedly), "Sam" is neither honest *or* sane.

    Great refutations, by the way -- too bad that -- as always -- they were wasted.

  • On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2010 @ 07:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How is it "harsh" to call it how it is?

    1. Multiple sock-puppet accounts
    2. Relentless taunting of Masnick, both about the content of his articles *and* about the aforementioned sock-puppetry?
    3. Repeated tendency to be *first* to reply to an article, even when It's only to regurgitate RIAA talking-points.
    4. Freely admits to fraudulently posting as other users, simply because they "don't log in".
    5. Has actually used the phrase "just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is right" --- while acting as an (unpaid) shill for the multinational corporate megaliths who are busily turning IP "law" into the basis for digital feudalism.

    Sometimes, "harshness" is justified. If the whiny little bitch can't deal with a truthful assessment of It's (total lack of) character -- as evidenced by It's OWN ADMITTED CONDUCT -- then It can simply cease posting here. One less (unpaid) corporate shilll/troll/jerkoff.

  • On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2010 @ 09:05pm

    Re: Re: Change we can believe in.

    Don't waste the time. "Sam I am" is every bit as much of a mindless corporate shill as TAM.

    History of copyright? "Sam" simply ignores it.
    Original justification for copyright: "Sam" just mumbles some nonsense about how "civil libertarians" (IE. those who actually give a shit about stuff like privacy, the Public domain, etc.) are ruining "the free and open network we all share" (and which "Sam" is supposedly, busily trying to lobby out of existence -- if his jabberings about how "Lammy" (the British culture minister) are to be believed.

    So don't waste the time. "Sam" has been debated -- and successfully refuted -- on more blogs and sites than I can be bothered to count. The truly sad part is that he comes back for more.

  • On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2010 @ 08:57pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Personally, I simply scroll past anything TAM posts, on the general principle that the dishonest, sock-puppeting little twat is just going to reiterate one of a fairly-predictable set of mistaken/discredited big-media lobbyist slogans, or simply completely "misunderstand" the article/anything said ti It, in an equally predictable fashion.

    We *all* know TAM is a congenitally-dishonest little worm who's gleefully admitted to spamming Techdirt with an indeterminate number of BOTH registered and un-registered ID's, as well as fraudulently impersonating others ID's/nicknames, and attempting to justify such conduct by saying it's perfectly fine, because "they don't log in."

    Personally, I've become bored treating the sad little shit-stain the way It so richly deserves, and don't even bother to read it's drivel anymore. (My personal "point of no return" was It's failed attempts to justify "clawing" *anything* back from the Public Domain -- FOR ANY REASON, much less, in response to a fillibuster.

    Just scroll past the idiotic little shit-stain.

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 07:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trollin Trollin Trollin RAWHIDE!

    What's wrong, TAM? Did you trip and break your crack-pipe?

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 07:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trollin Trollin Trollin RAWHIDE!

    "It was funny as heck posting as some of the people here who don't log in (like yourself) and having the morons like RD nodding their virtual heads along with me. That is when I realized that it wasn't about the ideas, it was about who was bringing them."

    Was this before, or after you started using the TAM-puppet?

    You really *are* a sociopathic little twat, aren't you?

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 07:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Trollin Trollin Trollin RAWHIDE!

    "Oh, I considered changing my name to Anti-RD, but everyone here is anti-moron, so I wouldn't really stand out. :)"

    We're obviously "anti-moron": we don't like YOU very much, do we, TAM?

    Jesus....not only can't you form coherent industry-apologist arguments, you can't even formulate a snappy comeback. (That's why the "Grandma's coat-hanger" thing made you mad -- because you didn't think of it FIRST!) :)

    Wow....just.....wow.

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 06:58pm

    Re: Meaning vs. Media Meaning

    None of the points you both raised actually addressed the *real* issue, however. It's all well and good to create some kind of imaginary straw-man version of "capitalism" involving free-markets and such for the purposes of theoretical discussion and such, but doing so completely side-steps the important issue of what REAL-WORLD "businessmen" really do.

    You can blame government for allowing corporations, and legitimizing the notion of "intellectual property" through monopoly privileges like copyright/patent, but that *still* doesn't absolve the BENEFICIARIES of such State-granted privileges from their share of the blame.

    It also completely ignores the entire history of how (corporate) capitalism has evolved through-out history.

    Read "People's history of the United States" by Howard Zinn.

    Hell, read basically anything by David Korten.

    So we supposedly shouldn't call the multi-national corporate oligarchy "capitalism". Okay. Any suggestions for a different term?

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 06:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Leveling the earnings curve?

    Wait....TAM defending the corporate media megaliths on the grounds that they supposedly help artists get "known" outside of "their region of the world?"

    Three words: DVD "region coding".
    Try to import a "foreign" film, and then tell me with a straight face that the corporate media megaliths are interested in getting artistic works "know outside of the region".

    (Hint: if region-coding was *really* just about ensuring that content displayed correctly, that could be implemented relatively easily. Nope, "region" coding in the DVD standard has everything to do with the desire for captive markets, staggered release-dates, and other assorted dirty industry tricks.

    Half-way coherent try, though. :)

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 06:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving Forward.

    "That's our TAMMY!"

    Seriously? That's all you can come up with?
    Every thread? Seriously?
    It's like a catch-phrase from one of those 1950s TV shows. You seriously need a new catch-phrase.

    Just sayin'.

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 06:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask TAM

    Wow, TAM, you just get dumber as you go, don't you?

    1. "The "Wild West phase"....
    Exactly which corporate mouthpiece did you "steal" that one off of, Hmm?

    2. Apple "renting" shows for a buck? Yeah, some people will be stupid enough to use it, just like some people are stupid enough to actually use Itunes, or download DRM-crippled media. Some people fall for Nigerian 419-scams, too. What's your point?

    The Ipad is yet another extremely over-hyped piece of vanity-tech, in the same vein as the other vanity products it cranks out for Crapple Fanbois. (The Iphone, innumerable over-priced, exceedingly-trendy Ipod models whose only redeeming aspect is that their cases come in various colors, etc.)

    Honestly, TAM, do you even *try* to come up with coherent arguments, or do you just type whatever comes into your head? I'd say the latter --- "Gee, maybe if I mention something about the Ipad, they won't notice what an inveterate dimwit I am, and will finally stop being mean to me just because I spam Techdirt with innumerable Sock-puppet accounts, and corporate-lobbyist propaganda!"

    Yet another TAM(Pwn) -- or should I say "Tampon" (since you're *still* being an idiotic little pussy?)

  • On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 06:29pm

    Re:

    How exactly can you sell Ebooks "at a loss?"

    There's very literally *no* "cost" to make more copies.
    So any "price" charged to allow people to download any particular copy (out of a theoretically infinite pool of such potential copies), isn't going to make any sense, whatsoever.

    Physical books cost to produce because they have stuff like wood pulp, printing presses, etc. Sure, I guess you could claim that they "cost" the author to write, except that they "cost" him in the same way as choosing to watch the latest episode of "Dancing with the stars" "costs" the viewers.

    It makes absolutely no sense for this guy to be complaining that customers *correctly* understand that charging for a digital file that cost effectively NOTHING to produce (or, as near to "Zero" as to make no difference), is actually pretty silly.

    Add to that, the fact that Ebook files are usually broken (DRM "protected"), or otherwise use whacky, proprietary file-formats in an attempt to preclude interoperability.

    *THAT'S* the real "entitlement mentality" -- the notion that the "rights-holders" (monopolists/their publishers) should have carte-blanche to impose any/every kind of idiocy on the buyer, and that their victims shouldn't even flinch, after having been scammed.

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 10:41am

    Re: Trollin Trollin Trollin RAWHIDE!

    Other indications of TAM's trolldom:

    1. It admits to using sock-puppet accounts. Nobody would resort to sock-puppeting *just* to weasel out of "personal" attacks -- ESPECIALLY when the "personal" attacks are directed toward a pseudonym/handle *explicitly* designed to insult the blog-owner. (Come on, dude...."The Anti-Mike"? Pure Flamebait, with absolutely no other even halfway credible justification.)

    2. It likes to pretend to be all offended when treated "unkindly", but can't even be bothered to *create AND MAINTAIN a single, consistent Techdirt-presence* -- and corresponding identity.
    Instead, It would rather stage the equivalent of a virtual "Punch And Judy show", and then taunt Masnick after the fact, like some kind of fifth-rate "Supervillian" from a cheap knock-off of the James Bond films.

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re

    "Capitalist should understand capitalism"

    What, you mean the single most prevalent business-form out there, the publically-traded, for profit corporation?

    Limited liability, a "veil" between corporate and "personal" assets, legal "personhood", hell...thanks to the Supreme court's recent fuckup (oops, I mean "decision"), the ability to essentially "buy" the electoral process outright...

    Not to mention the fact that the mere existence of copyright and patent monopolies *by design* represent State micro-management of economic affairs to prevent "unauthorized" competition.

    If capitalism was *really* about competition or "free enterprise" the corporation, copyrights, and patents wouldn't even exist.

    (Corporate) capitalists are *extremely* "statist" (to drag out some Libertarian/Objectivist/Right-wing buzzwords for Y'all) :)

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Moving Forward.

    Correction: "DIY" would either be "three letters" or "three words".

    Saving TAM (or some other whackjob) from mentioning it.

  • On the post: How Can The Music Industry Be Dead When More Music Is Being Produced And More Money Is Being Made?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2010 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Moving Forward.

    "ROck and roll is dead!"

    Two words: Punk Rock.
    Two more words: DIY
    Three more words: Wannabe corporate douchebag.

    I have *no* respect whatsoever for self-idenfified "rock" musicians who turn into corporate lap-dogs. I have even *less* respect for indie musicians start fellating the RIAA *before* they even get signed, in the (most likely vain) hope that *they too* can someday become corporate lap-dogs.

Next >>