Henry Emrich 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (145) comment rss

  • 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 @ 10:16am

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

    "You think I am a troll because I don't agree with Mike".

    Dude, *I* don't "Agree with Mike", sometimes.
    In particular, I think his extremely well-intentioned efforts to demonstrate alternatives to the RIAA-style "business model"/reaction to technology -- so as to help them succeed -- is an extremely bad idea.

    NOT because new business-models aren't a great idea (they are), but primarily because the multinational corporate megaliths using RIAA, IFPI, BREIN -- AND copyright "law" itself to the detriment of society at large, and artists in particular --- don't *DESERVE* any sort of "help" whatsoever.

    The reason people hate them is *not* that they still, sorta, kinda produce (occasionally) good music or entertainment media. The reason people hate them, has more to do with stuff like 11 copyright-term increases in 30 years, re-monopolizing ("clawing back") culture from the Public Domain, engaging in misinformation as to what copyright was originally for, etc. etc.

    So helping them survive (or even adapt) to the changing technological and cultural milieu is....dare I say....extremely charitable and benevolent, from my point of view.

    So, see: the criterion for not being treated like a dumbass is *not* "Agreement with Mike". It's simply NOT BEING A DUMBASS CORPORATE SHILL.

  • 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 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask TAM

    Okay, TAM:

    So how does it feel to be an *unpaid* shill, then?
    Seriously, dude -- if you're NOT being paid to make a complete fool of yourself by being their ultimate fanboy, then you *should* be.

    Doubly ironic, since your frantic fumblings here give the RIAA member corporations' propaganda campaign a tremendous amount of *free* coverage.

  • On the post: Warner Music Shoots Self In Head; Says No More Free Streaming

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2010 @ 03:03pm

    Re: Re:

    "Man there are quite a few indie record labels on there I really respect and have lots of good bands that are under the umbrella of WMG far reaching and self destructive cover of capital."

    Then you can't really call them "indie" (independent), can you?

    Or are you using "indie" as a genre label? Pretty sad if we've gotten to the level where even major-label "cultural product" that actually manages not to sound like formulaic, cookie-cutter bullshit gets called "indie".

    http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/35487

    "I'm kind of conflicted about the audience right now, anyway. Not necessarily my audience, but the overall million or so adults in the United States that listen to music. THE audience, as it were. They think that music is Indie because it sounds similar to the Arctic Monkeys or White Stripes or something. I'm really not sure. I think the record labels are also trying to brand some of their new bands as "Indie Rock," despite the obvious hypocrisy."

    Just sayin'.
    Any musician/band who is *still* stupid enough to want to get raped (oops, I mean "signed") by the multinational corporate megaliths....well, they're guaranteed to have ONE fan --- TAM :)

  • On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2010 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the elephant in the room

    "I know its over simplified but you can get the idea
    why pay $19.35, instead of $15, for the same 15 songs when it actually cost less to offer them digitally??? Why pay $.99 for that matter? Its just gouging and thats what is pizzing people off!!! Thats the REAL elephant."

    No, the REAL elephant is that the files you *think* you are "buying" are often broken by design. True, the IP apologists like to call it "DRM", but the fact that it presents any obstacle whatsoever to inter-operability across multiple devices OF THE USER'S OWN CHOOSING, is reason enough not to even bother.

    Anybody remember Spiralfrog? They attempted to "give away" DRM-crippled files, but nobody wanted them. (I put "give away" in quotes, because no matter how many times the files were downloaded, the "original" files were still there -- you can't claim to have "given away" something, if you still have it).

    So, people don't even want DRM-crippled files *for free*, but the corporate megaliths somehow believe they'll "buy" them?
    (Additionally, there's the somewhat odious fact that by "buying" such DRM-crippled files from "legitimate" sources, you are directly bank-rolling their infamous campaign of destroying the Public domain via copyright-term extensions and such.
    And nobody who has actually thought about these issues will feel comfortable doing that, ESPECIALLY given the fact that the file they end up "buying" (oops, I mean "licensing") could/probably will stop working, given the slightest little DRM-related glitch.

    *THAT* is the real elephant in the room.

  • On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2010 @ 07:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Get a clue

    "You seem to think that everyone is mean and money grubbing and just out for what they can get and stuff the next person."

    This surprises you?
    The pernicious little twat attempts to justify re-monopolizing Public Domain content. What more do you need to know?

    Also fascinating seeing TAM say stuff like "Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right!" (which he did, over on another thread), being as he's the arch-advocate of copy"right" law, but couldn't give two liquidy shits about whether such "laws" are actually accomplishing what they were originally intended to do, etc.

    Anybody who gives TAM the benefit of the doubt, is delusional.

    Stop feeding it, RD!

  • On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2010 @ 07:15am

    Re: Re:

    Yet again, TAM whimpering about the supposed evil of "infringing". From the same troll who actually defended "clawing stuff back" from the Public Domain....

    ....and admitted to using sock-puppet accounts to create the illusion of "support" for his drivel.....

    Anyone who still gives "TAM" the benefit of the doubt, is every bit as delusional as whoever actually *is* behind that particular sock-puppet.

  • On the post: Let's Face Facts: ACTA Is Called An 'Executive Agreement' To Change The Law With Less Hassle Than A Treaty

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

    Re: There's another (more likely) option:

    TAM(pon) lives in a CONDO(m)?

    Sorry....couldn't resist.
    (Not as funny as I originally hoped).

  • On the post: Let's Face Facts: ACTA Is Called An 'Executive Agreement' To Change The Law With Less Hassle Than A Treaty

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2010 @ 09:11pm

    There's another (more likely) option:

    5. the spineless little shit-sack behind TAM has grown bored with the nearly-continuous correction of It's sadly-misguided corporate drivel, and relentless -- deserved -- "personal" attacks directed at the TAM sock-puppet.
    As a result, It has decided to hide out like the cowardly little troll that It is, while it struggles feverishly with how to fabricate yet ANOTHER suck(oops, I mean "sock)-puppet persona which isn't so blatantly, transparently stupid.

    Don't worry, folks -- unless we're really lucky (or their was an auspicious accident of some sort) -- the Shit-Troll formerly known as TAM will be back.

    (It obviously has no life -- else it wouldn't be lurking around 24/7, so as to get to post it's inane gibberish *first*, on nearly every article.

  • On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2010 @ 04:08pm

    The most ironic thing.....

    ...about the miracle that is TAM (and other such trolls), is their assumption that Masnick is actually an enemy of their corporate overlords, because he neglects to participate in their particular pipe-dream.

    The thing is, he's actually *much* more charitable and sympathetic to your corporate overlords, even though he understands that their actions are completely and utterly ridiculous, counter-productive, and ultimately suicidal.

    Evidence?

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/004218.shtml

    "While I have no clue about their feelings towards me, I should clarify my feelings towards them -- which I would hope is clear from these posts. I do not hate the recording industry or the movie industry. Quite the opposite. I'm a big fan of both music and movies. The point of this series is not to slam the organizations making these moves, but to help them. I hope they succeed, because it would be a lot easier for everyone involved. However, I do believe that their current strategies of alienating their best customers, relying on government protection, and pretending this is some sort of epic battle between good and evil aren't just doomed to fail, they're actively making things worse for themselves. What I write shouldn't be viewed as hatred for these organizations, but suggestions on how they could create for themselves a much bigger and more successful market that doesn't require everyone to hate them. I'm quite confident that the market for entertainment is only going to grow to tremendous levels going forward -- and I believe these organizations have every opportunity to capture quite a bit of it (though, they've been throwing that chance away every day). It's just a matter of recognizing the long-term strategic errors of their ways."

    Ultimately, This is why TAM and others of that ilk are so fascinating -- rather than admit the (blindingly self-evident) fact that their corporate overlords "Strategy" as regards the Internet, digital culture, etc. has completely backfired, and *trying something different*, they persist in apologizing for/excusing/justifying the aforementioned idiocy, and, in so doing, hasten their corporate overlords' complete and utter ruination and collapse --- ALL THE WHILE, making themselves look like pretentious, uninformed, arrogant little shits in the process.

    They persist in frantically attacking probably the *only* person on this entire planet who BOTH understands what their corporate overlords are doing, AND wants to help them survive.

    That's what's fascinating to me. Beyond all the (willful) ignorance and corporate lap-doggery, TAM and other trolls are hell-bent on discrediting the very person/business-model that stands even a snowball's chance in hell of saving them from the slag-heap of obsolescence and/or total ignominy.

    Utterly astounding.

  • On the post: Remix Culture Is About The Culture As Much As The Remix

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2010 @ 05:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Moh Oh Oh Ron.

    You expect TAM (or, more accurately, who/whatever is behind that particular sock-puppet), to actually UNDERSTAND something?

    And here I thought You'd been reading what It posts. I'm actually kinda disappointed that, after all this time, you'd still entertain even the merest fantasy of that sort.

    After all, according to TAM, not even the notional "expiration" of copyright should count as an end to the monopoly. They can just "claw" the cultural "product" back, by re-monopolizing it, at whim.

    I used to think TAM was probably a paid corporate shill, but now I'm not so sure, if for no other reason than you'd think corporate front-groups would use somebody who could actually formulate coherent statements of principle.

    Yet more TAM-fail. *yawn*.

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2010 @ 05:46pm

    Hey --- TAM isn't a shill

    Reasons:

    1. The fuckin' pinhead blathers about "not having the rights" to monopolized cultural "product" -- while simultaneously claiming that there IS no "right" to any sort of Public Domain.

    No, the dishonest little shit never comes out and says it iin so many words, but the mere fact that he can find *any* instances of re-monopolizing ("Clawing something back") from the Public Domain -- FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER -- pretty much conclusively demonstrates which state -- monopolized or freed -- has precedence.

    2. He keeps hammering on the same -- already debunked -- points. Y'know why? Because ultimately, he's not even here to try to defend the notion of "intellectual property".

    He's already admitted his real agenda, by admitting that he's been around Techdirt "for a long time", has resorted to using sock-puppets to create the illusion of support for his dubious idiocy, and making extremely dubious claims without even the merest pretense of off-site evidence to back them up.

    He's not even an IP apologist troll, folks.

    That, at least, would be worthy of some respect. A totally mistaken and ultimately indefensible position, but worthy of at least the grudging mistake given to a well-meaning, but mistaken, opponent.

    No. TAM (or, more precisely, who/whatever person or persons are behind the current sock-puppet) are here for one reason only: "For the Lulz".

    Given TAM's current fascinating with RD, one wouldn't be particularly remiss to entertain the possibility that they were one and the same.

    The fact that TAM's puppeteer(s) may on occasion say something halfway reasonable, should in no way be taken as evidence that he/it/they *are* actually reasonable.

    Indeed, a more likely scenario is that TAM is one of many sock-puppets, used by several trolls. This would account nicely for the infrequent lapses into coherent argument and defensible viewpoint (as opposed to It's usual spew of nonsequiturs, and mindlessly regurgitating corporate lobbyist talking-points.

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2010 @ 04:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: What You Talkin' about, TAM?

    There is SO much wrong with this, TAM:

    1. You say we "attack the person", except for the fact that your shabby little sock-puppet ploy demonstrates that you're simply too much of a pussy to even BE "a person". Instead, because you are so consistently wrong, you feel the need to create a "crowd", so somebody agrees with your RIAA talking-points.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

    "In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]

    Hint: that is EXACTLY what you did.

    2. Moreover, none of us will *ever* be able to take your whimpering about having been "insulted" seriously, because Y'know what? It wouldn't be all that far-fetched for a dishonest little twat like you to deliberately create another account just to "bully" yourself, so you could play victim.

    You mention Roger on American Dad. Remember the episode where he was basically having a "war" with one of his alternate identities?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_That_Got_Away_%28American_Dad!%29

    Yet again, you fail. Exactly how much failure is required before it can be described as "epic", without fear of hyperbole?

    "Grandma's coat-hanger" reference has now backed up two generations, to Great-Great grandma.

    (Hint: I can't really apologize to "you", if I can't even be fairly certain there IS only one "you". Moreover, you shouldn't really expect an apology from "me", because there's no way for you to be sure that there IS only one human behind the name.

    Do you *really* expect to be able to justify sock-puppetry and troling, using the same shaky methods you use to apologize for the corporate megaliths?

    Bitch, please. :)

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

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

    What You Talkin' about, TAM?

    How exactly is creating copious numbers of sock-puppets to fuck with people's minds not being "misleading?"

    ("Grandma's coat-hanger" apology retracted, in full.)

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

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

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

    So (taking a page from the other Shit-troll's playbook), show us some of these "Uber-kewl, 3l33t Skillz" you've supposedly developed as an Internet-elder.

    (hint: "Goatse.cx" doesn't count -- except to confirm some really dark suspicious I've been harboring about you for a while now. :)

    (NOT apologizing for that one --- the coat-hanger one, yeah -- but NOT that one!) :)

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 09:00pm

    *sigh* :(

    See what happens when I attempt to give TAM the benefit of the doubt? Hell, I apologized when he didn't even really deserve it, and what do I get for it?

    Basically, the following:

    1. Making more of something is exactly equivalent to taking something that is *already* there. ("P2p is stealing!")

    2. digital files and patented technologies are EXACTLY like your underwear! Without your underwear, you'd be NAKED, and How would that make YOU feel?

    3. Copyright infringement is totally super-evil. Public domain "infringement" -- re-monopolizing something that was *already* freed -- is "usually" bad form...except if somebody screwed up, and time ran out. THAT's just "the copyright bargain" in reverse!

    Are you *really* this dumb, TAM?

    I'm pretty sure you're not quite as stupid as you seem, TAM. For one thing, you supposedly read Heinlein. (Or do you just keep a bunch of "collectible first-editions" stashed away somewhere?

    Some Heinlein quotes that might help you:

    * How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?
    o "Doctor Pinero" in Life-Line (1939)

    "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

    * Life-Line (1939)

    Last (and most appropriate in your case), is the following:

    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

    Is anybody else getting bored with the sheer amount of TAM-fail here on the board, or is it just me?

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 04:15pm

    Re: Re: Helpful links

    Whoa!
    Might have to revise my estimate of you upward a bit, TAM: You *actually* admitted that the current state of IP is flawed, and that at least some aspects of it are "bullshit".

    Now, just to catch everybody else up to speed here (and, continuing to be nice), here's what you DID NOT do:

    You did NOT:

    1. Dismiss the importance of the Public Domain on the grounds that you have a (presumably used) copy of "heechee Rendezvous". (That one really got to me --- dismissing the importance of the Public Domain because you had access to used copies via "first sale" --- an exception to copyright Big Media has never particularly liked.)

    2. Claim that the Public Domain itself was "unfair" because it "expropriated" the artists/creators. (I've actually seen that argument used --- oddly enough, by my Ol' buddy "Sam". Context: a statement over on p2pnet that expiration of copyright term would "take" something from his daughter. What, exactly, he never explain -- other than, of course, the State-granted monopoly privileges attendant to copyright itself.)

    3. You didn't attempt to dodge the question by asserting (without any evidence) that we were all just a bunch of greedy, un-creative drones who'd "obviously never done anything creative" in our whole lives, because if we *were* creative Ubermenschen, we couldn't fail to approve of perpetual monopoly via the installment plan.


    4. You didn't resort to nonsequiturs, clumsy sputterings about "And...but...unless", or shaky thought experiments about opening hamburger restaurants.


    5. Most importantly, you ACTUALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
    You also didn't try to find some way to defend the indefensible. Put bluntly, for once, you weren't a complete dickhead.

    Wasn't really that hard, was it?

    Now, the next step is for you to clarify that "in general" equivocation: You figure allowing stuff to STAY in the public domain once it gets there is a good thing "in general", but that begs the following question:

    "What "exceptional circumstances" (if any) do you believe justify violating the "copyright bargain" by taking stuff BACK from the Public Domain?

    (Of course, that also begs the question of whether copyright term extensions THEMSELVES represent a breach of said "bargain").

    Go for it, TAM.

    I'm really interested.

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 03:51pm

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

    GOOD links!

    Another thing to ask yourself is: with the advent (and eventual ubiquity) of "Consumer-level" HD video cameras/camcorders (I saw one for 150 bucks that could record in 1080p or 1080i, with an SD card slot), and increasingly inexpensive (or even Free/Open-source) video editing software, you think "production values" won't inevitably rise as a result?

    Check out any "fanfilm" made by Star Trek geeks. It's actually pretty amazing what they can do on a relative "shoestring" budget (and, more importantly, since Paramount actually at least partially understands the whole "get the fans participating" thing, they don't actively try to have fan-projects killed.)

    http://www.hiddenfrontier.com/

    Now, I realize that the "production-values" are actually pretty shaky on the above, as compared to what you're used to seeing nowadays. But the truly amazing thing is what they were able to do on a shoestring budget, BACK IN THE 1990s (which is when the projenitor/alpha version of the above referenced fanfilm series began.)

    You honestly don't think that the combination of increasingly-good technology (HD cams and such), AND an increasing knowledge-base among New Media (oops, I mean "amateur") vid makers won't make the quality increase?

    More to the point: you *really* think the "production values" of all big studio fare are good?

    You obviously never saw that godawful remake of "The Music Man" starring Matthew Broderick and Kristen Chenowith:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293437/

    (Proof you really *Can't* polish a turd!) :)

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 03:27pm

    Helpful links

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers

    Care to dispute any of this, TAM?

    (Oddly enough, I had this same exact discussion with "Sam I Am" over on Techdirt. He attempted to weasel out of responding by accusing me of being un-creative, characterizing the entire board as "shop-lifting pottymouths" (even though p2p file-sharing is VERY different from "shoplifting" for reasons too obvious to mention), and stating unequivocably that the history/original justification for copyright was "totally irrelevant" so long as "his kind of thinking was in the world".

    (yes, "Sam" -- I remember.)

    So, having provided the off-site links to bolster the evidence, I'll also be the first one to point out what should already be blatantly, mind-destroyingly obvious:

    IP apologists don't give two liquidy shits about any of that. If they *did*, they'd actually admit the existence of the "copyright bargain", allow cultural 'product' to enter the Public Domain on schedule, and, most especially, refrain from RE-ENCUMBERING "content" which *had* already entered the Public Domain.

    The clearest evidence that IP apologists don't give a shit about any of this, is the fact that TAM actually attempted to justify *any* reassertion of copyright on (previously) public-domain works NO MATTER HOW SMALL OR INFREQUENT.

    Trying to keep the intensity/snarkiness down here, friends. Also trying to give TAM the benefit of the doubt on this one.

    I was nice to you already tonight, TAM: so go ahead, and prove me wrong on this one.

    Please? :)

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 02:57pm

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

    "Apology accepted, thanks for being the bigger man (or is it woman) ;)"

    I *knew* it! TAM is secretly hot for me. You know you love me, Tammy-Tam. :)

    Seriously tho....the "Coat-hanger" thing wasn't cool.
    Mea Culpa.

    Just don't be a dick, and we're cool. :)

  • On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 02:46pm

    Huh????

    "by someone who actually knows what he's talking about"

    Huh?
    Oh, goody: just when I thought it couldn't get any dumber, we get THIS.

    "by someone who actually knows what he's talking about" could maybe have done something like....oh, maybe LINK to the (supposedly) better sources, but that would be too hard.

    That would involve actually backing up your claims with something other than a shaky thought-experiment of "think about it this way".

    So -- being the kind and gentle soul that everybody (especially TAM) knows me to be -- kindly do us stupid little peons a favor and LINK TO THESE "BETTER" BLOGS OF WHICH YOU SPEAK.

    (Hint: strange as it might sound, the *one* IP apologist troll I actually respected was that lobbyist guy from that "center for protecting innovation" or whatever it was, because *he* actually put all his cards on the table, and admitted to being a lobbyist for what was by all indications an IP-related front-group.

Next >>