Henry Emrich 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (145) comment rss

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

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 02:38pm

    I'll be nice to TAM....I promise:

    "My opinion has always been this: If you are going to disassemble a multi-billion dollar a year industry that employs untold tens of thousands of people all over the world, you should be replacing it with something that has the same financial impact. Just ripping it down to say you can rip it down doesn't cut it."

    What exactly does "cut it", TAM?

    1. The aforementioned multi-billion dollar a year industry's lobbyists buying themselves RETROACTIVE copyright-term extension?

    2. Or maybe the part where their lobbyists try to get user-enabling technologies (such as the VCR) banned BY GOVERNMENT, by comparing them to serial killers?

    3. Or maybe the fact that the aforementioned "industry" routinely screws its own talent-base? That the "collection" agencies don't actually distribute what they collect?

    Seriously, TAM -- and please realize that, since this is the *first* sensible thing I've actually seen you post -- how does any of THAT "cut it?"

    Because ultimately, when business --- even "multi-billion-dollar industries" --- engage in bullshit like that, they DESERVE to be destroyed.

    Just the same as the Tobacco companies suppressing/falsifying evidence about whether they intentionally manipulated nicotine levels, etc. cannot be considered "good busines practices" by any stretch of the imagination.

    The fact is, the multi-national corporate "persons" for whom you relentlessly apologize at every opportunity do NOT deserve it, and the preservation of their horrifyingly-corrupt, lobbyist-ridden, and ultimately completely innffective "business-model" does NOT merit the destruction of REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES, or the attempted hobbling of REALLY GOOD TECHNOLOGY.

    Glad to see you stopped playing the martyr, and decided to actually say something halfway sensible.

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

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 02:22pm

    As opposed to WHAT, exactly?

    "A classy person with classy opinions."

    Well, if you consider not treating obvious trolls with kid gloves when they persist in reiterating the same stupid bullshit over -- and over -- and over -- and over -- as not being "classy", then yeah, I is a reg'lar boor, I is. :)

    "Nope, just that it is the sort of comment that is just way over the line. If you cannot control yourself on something as simple as being civilized, how can I take anything else you say seriously?"

    Newsflash, TAM: that would presuppose that you took ANYTHING said here "seriously" enough to actually learn, let alone admit when you're mistaken -- as opposed to being the sad little parrot you've been for HOW long now?

    "just remember when you deal with Henry if he does like you, you get:"

    Uh....not to belabor the whole "type what you INTENDED to say", thing....but shouldn't that be:

    "If he DOESN'T like you, you get...." :)

    (Can't really even blame that one on a "typo", TAM -- the most likely typos in the above case would be "Doest" or "Doesn". Missing THREE keystrokes (counting the apostrophe) is so unlikely as to constitute a near-impossibility.

    Or was it a "Freudian slip?" Are you sitting there, in the TAM-lair, desperately hoping against hope that somewhere in the depths of my black and evil soul I (and others) really *do* like you? That all the repeated, painstaking and oh so gentle correction of your misinformed bullshit is REALLY because we all want to be your BFF?

    Bitch, please.
    You're here to troll, you're whole persona smacks of "flame-bait", but then when you get the slightest little jibe, you play the martyr.

    STFU.

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

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 02:04pm

    :)

    "I can accept a lot, but that is WAY out of bounds. I look forward to your apology."

    And *I* look forward to you and the other dishonest little shit finally getting bored with being treated the way you deserve, and leaving the board.

    In short, no. Not gonna happen. Y'know why? Ultimately, it's because whatever you are, and whoever you might be AFK (assuming you're not a badly-programmed Propaganda-bot), you have CHOSEN to create a Techdirt persona specifically designed to parrot corporate misinformation AND be an insulting little twat, in the bargain.

    "The Anti-Mike" got It's poor widdle feelings hurt.
    Boo fucking hoo hoo hoo.

    Maybe a little more of that, and you'll decide to fuck off.
    It's not like you --- or "Spam I am", for that matter -- ever actually add anything worthwhile to the blogs you pollute. Hell, "Cocker SAMial" (RIAA lapdog), if we're to believe It's jabbering, is ACTIVELY LOBBYING for even MORE of what's worst about IP "law".

    So no, I'm not apologizing for shit.
    You don't like it? Fuck off, Anti-Thought.

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

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 01:29pm

    :)

    "Grandma would call it stealing."

    "Not my Grandmother. She read Techdirt up until her passing just a few months ago. She understood the difference between these two basic concepts. My grandma was smart. I guess yours might not be, but I do not see how that's my problem."

    Mike:
    Of course TAM's grandmother wasn't smart: she didn't resort to ol' coat-hanger method. Either that, or she mishandled it badly. Either way, same result: TAM the bastard stepchild of Jack Valenti and HIllary Rosen.

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

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 01:24pm

    Now, notice something, kids:

    1. TAM (as usual) has utterly failed to refute any of what Mike posted. Instead -- and, this is fascinating in itself -- he asks mike if he wants to "spank the naughty judge who called it stealing."

    Thus, according to TAM, we are to disregard the fact that Congress/The supreme court said that whatever infringement may be, it is most definitely *not* theft -- or even something equilvalent to theft under a different name.

    We are instead, expected to believe that because "the naughty judge called it stealing", then it *is* "stealing".

    (Hmm...if I wasn't the congenital whack-job our resident trolls believe me to be, I'd almost be tempted to think that the fact the Supreme Court is comprised of *higher ranking judges* neccesarily means that their interpretation takes precedence over the mealy-mouthed Corpspeak of some lower-ranking judge....but then again, I'm also capable of understanding the fact that 1 (digital file) plus 1 (copy of digital file) equals TWO files. (Making more of something is "stealing".....fail.)

    Y'know what? I'm in a charitable mood. Our other IP-fetishist "Sam I Am" (with whom I have no small amount of 'history', being as It infests innumerable other blogs), asked me "What do YOU do". '

    I'll be happy to tell you that, Sam:

    I do *many* things. One of them is making home-made fudge. If you and TAM would be so kind as to give me your address, I'd be more than happy to send you some. (Of course, I'll have to eat a good bit of laxatives and prunes, and make sure I have a sturdy enough box.

    (If you don't get the joke, you're even dumber than I thought you already were.)

    I figure it's only fitting, seeing as we've all been taking YOUR shit for months (if not years.)

    BTW, "Sam" -- you never did explain what "showcase ventilation" is, exactly --- not that I actually give "two liquidy shits" (Inside joke from the p2pnet days --- remember, Sammykins?) :)

  • On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 11:41am

    WHat do *you* do, "Sam?"

    You have yet to offer ANY coherent arguments in defense of your views. What is this? Ten different sites.

    What I do is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Y'know why?
    Ray Beckerman.
    Musicians who don't suck RIAA corporate cock like Lars Ulrich & Co.

    No, instead we're supposed to take the word of a glorified lighting-tech who seems to spend a FUCKLOAD of time trolling here, p2pnet, torrenfreak, etc. etc.

    Ray Beckerman is a lawyer fighting your corporate chums,
    but, IIRC, your response to him was complete and utter contempt. (Something about a "country hick lawyer routine" or some such, but to find the exact refference would involve wading through a vast swamp of your feeble-minded drivel on I don't know HOW many different sites.)

    As for musicians, hell...you just glibly discount any and all examples who DON'T just parrot the corporate talking-points: one woman isn't a "real" musician -- she just sells empty bottles and does "amateur" music on the side. Trent Reznor doesn't count because he's a "big name", and he DID have a label-deal at one point, etc.

    So, no: I'm not telling you a fucking thing about who I am, or what I do, because no matter *what* I said, you'd find some reason why it would under-cut any points I've raised, repeatedly.

    Go spam some other blogs. (I'm really fascinated by the fact that a high-powered, promethean Ubermensch like yourself can find time to reiterate RIAA talking-points on multiple blogs *and* still manage to find time to create innovations in "showcase ventilation" that supposedly justify your support for corporate IP monopolies in perpetuity.

    Dickhead.

  • On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 11:26am

    TAM, you really are a pinhead, aren't you?

    1. "What the law considers limited"....
    How exactly do backdoor-deals by corporate lobbyists constitute "the law?" The recent supreme court decision in regard to "citizens United" probably gives you total cream-jeans, seeing as it pretty much explicitly legitimizes such things.

    2. "Only a small amount has been pulled back from the public domain"....

    So, not only do you define "the law" as "whatever corporate lobbyists manage to buy/bribe from their cronies", but you *also* defend re-monopolization of PREVIOUSLY FREED content on the grounds that it supposedly doesn't happen "all that often".
    So how much is "too much", moron?
    Any attempted justification for such conduct will simply be ignored as the idiocy that it is.

    3. "You've obviously never created anything of value"....blah blah blah, last resort of IP trolls. The poor beleaguered, Promethean "Creators" somehow "deserve" perpetual monopoly power over all culture "product", as do their decendents. Why? Because "the law" (which was/is bought out of any semblance of it's original intent by corporate lobbyists) says so.
    And if those lobbyists somehow manage to fuck up and allow something to "fall" into the public domain, well, no worries there, because they can just retroactively monopolize it again, "copyright bargain" be damned.

    Any objections to this state of affairs simply *must* simply be the whinings of the un-created masses, who, in their stupidity fail to realize that they "owe" the promethan corporate Ubermenschen perpetual monopoly.

    Fuck you, TAM -- I will *never* ease up on your feeble-minded, troll ass, because you don't deserve me too.

    In other words, Anti-Thought: FUCK YOU, and your corporate Overlords.

  • On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 08:18am

    Why bother?

    1. TAM still hasn't admitted that copyright is intended to be a limited-duration, State-granted monopoly *privilege".

    2. Nor does It admit that It's corporate overlords/pay-masters have been very busy buying themselves term-extensions WHICH ARE THEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THEIR MONOPOLIES FROM EXPIRING. (Use of caps lock was intentional, in the same way that some people speak very slowly -- yet very loudly -- to the mentally-challenged.)

    3. TAM *still* regards digital files and physical objects as equivalent. As such, It remains incapable of offering a satisfactory explanation of how MAKING MORE digital files (copying) "steals" the originals.

    Simple empirical expirment for TAMtroll:

    Go to a library (ooh, those evil, evil dens of "book-sharing!" Remember kids, every book you read at the library represents a "lost sale!") :)

    Use the copier, and copy a few pages from one of the books.

    Guess what, TAM? After doing so, the "original" ten pages do NOT magically vanish from the book. Y'know what *would* constitute "stealing" in this case? If I ripped the pages out of the book, THEN I would be "stealing", because --- wait for it --- *I* would have the pages, but everybody else wouldn't.

    But TAM-troll will probably now proceed to whine about how I didn't copy the entire book, so this falls within "fair use". Except, Y'know what?
    Your corporate overlords/paymasters didn't even want to "permit" copy machines in the first place. Hell, they didn't even want to "permit" people to re-sell their OWN PHYSICAL COPIES OF BOOKS, which is why the whole "first sale" thing was codified in the first place.

    Of course, TAM is simply too mind-numbingly stupid to admit when It is completely and utterly wrong, learn how NOT to be wrong, and stop excusing/cheering on runaway corporate privilege.

    So why do any of you even try? It's incapable of understanding even the simplest counter-arguments, because It can't manage to wrap it's "Anti-Mind" around anything but the specious "you wouldn't steal a car" non-sequitur queefed up by it's corporate overlords.

    TAM is either a corporate plant, stupid beyond comprehension, or an extremely finely-crafted parody of the worst forms of IP-apologist "argument" imaginable.

    Everything It writes reminds me of the "Jeff K." stuff. (Anybody else remember that from the "Jargon File?")

  • On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 11:01pm

    GODDAMN DOUBLE POSTS!

    Gotta get a new keyboard, as I said before :(

  • On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 10:58pm

    This is the basic problem with all IP morons

    I'm not going to play games. I'm not going to create this false dichotomy between supposed "maximalists" and ostensibly more reasonable defenders of the notion of IP.

    Intellectual "property" (copyright and patents) is a system of State-granted monopoly privileges that doesn't even achieve what it's defenders justifies such monopolies (advancing "science and the useful arts", according to the U.s. Constitutional formulation).

    Such monopolies *might* be reasonable if they actually DID advance science and the useful arts, or really *did* enrich creators (as opposed to publishers), or didn't last for absurdly long amounts (and ever-increasing) amounts of time.

    But when we reach the point where an IP apologist troll actually dares to submit a link defending Government proposals to mandate "internet licensing" (and the de facto abolition of any form of privacy whatsoever) in defense of IP....well, that's when I personally stop being able to find *any* "defense" of IP tenable.

    TAM and "Sam I Am" are either too greedy, or simply too short-sighted to understand what they're defending, and would gladly march the world into digital totalitarianism if that was actually possible, simply to ensure perpetual "protection" (monopolization) of as much cultural "content" as possible, just so they could squeeze a few bucks out of the resultant regime, for themselves.

    So either these dishonest little shits come forward with their REAL names, addresses, emails, Google street-views of their houses, etc., or they can be the dishonest little shits they are, and STFU.

  • On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 10:58pm

    This is the basic problem with all IP morons

    I'm not going to play games. I'm not going to create this false dichotomy between supposed "maximalists" and ostensibly more reasonable defenders of the notion of IP.

    Intellectual "property" (copyright and patents) is a system of State-granted monopoly privileges that doesn't even achieve what it's defenders justifies such monopolies (advancing "science and the useful arts", according to the U.s. Constitutional formulation).

    Such monopolies *might* be reasonable if they actually DID advance science and the useful arts, or really *did* enrich creators (as opposed to publishers), or didn't last for absurdly long amounts (and ever-increasing) amounts of time.

    But when we reach the point where an IP apologist troll actually dares to submit a link defending Government proposals to mandate "internet licensing" (and the de facto abolition of any form of privacy whatsoever) in defense of IP....well, that's when I personally stop being able to find *any* "defense" of IP tenable.

    TAM and "Sam I Am" are either too greedy, or simply too short-sighted to understand what they're defending, and would gladly march the world into digital totalitarianism if that was actually possible, simply to ensure perpetual "protection" (monopolization) of as much cultural "content" as possible, just so they could squeeze a few bucks out of the resultant regime, for themselves.

    So either these dishonest little shits come forward with their REAL names, addresses, emails, Google street-views of their houses, etc., or they can be the dishonest little shits they are, and STFU.

  • On the post: Australian Court Says Men At Work's 'Down Under' Infringes On Folk Song; Only Took Decades To Notice

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 12:15pm

    What does TAM "think?"

    1. It doesn't "think" anything:

    Anybody remember "Eliza", the virtual psychoanalysis program? I'm pretty sure TAM is something like that. It and other IP-trolls are nothing but more or less poorly-designed propaganda-bots (based on proprietary, closed-source software, of course).
    That would explain why TAM can only regurgitate RIAA talking-points. Anything beyond a fairly-limited collection of stock phrases causes It's poorly-written code to either spit out broken crap like "no...but...unless", or crash, and be unable to post more propaganda.

    TAM hasn't responded because whoever's running it hasn't managed to reboot it, yet.

  • On the post: Survey Claims Some Depressed People Use The Internet A Lot

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 08:07am

    What kind of idiocy is this?

    1. If I'm watching online porn (just to be hypothetical), am I "surfing the Net?"
    These people fatally misunderstand what "the Internet" actually is, and what goes on "there".

    2. How often to depressed people use the telephone to call friends/family/anonymous "party-chat" lines?
    (Is doing so an "escape from the real world"?
    Until -- and unless -- we reach the point where the Internet is peopled solely by Turing-compliant AI's, the vast majority of what goes on "online" will involve people from the "real" (meatspace) world. IRL people create the Lolcats and suchlike.

    The main problem -- and this goes RIGHT back to the pre-Internet veiw of "media" --- is that radio and television broadcasting trained people toward a certain, relatively passive approach to communications technology, and culture in general:

    "Broadcasters" had "big megaphones", and everybody else was just "listeners" or "viewers" -- but unless you ended up on a game-show or something, you never really "participated" in media. Another side-effect of this paradigm was that certain, particularly-favored folks got to become "celebrities", because their images were blasting out of the "big megaphone" so much that you couldn't *help* but know about them.

    They couldn't *help* but "connect with fans", because old-style media was this vast, all-encompasing voice screaming their name over and over, to the point where you *had* to listen, because it was the loudest.

    Nowadays -- and this is what *really* scares the old-style, corporate media out of their minds -- even if everybody stopped reasserting the Public domain by technological means (what *they* deride as "piracy"), the media megaliths would no longer be the central focus.

    It's pretty telling that this "study" is being hyped by the BBC and other "major media" outlets, because they are the modern equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers and "professional scribes" trying to deal with a completely different cultural landscape.

    But hey, giving this study the benefit of the doubt: it's pretty obvious TAM is horribly depressed, because not only does he troll Techdirt, but he's often the FIRST poster, even though the vast majority of what he posts makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. :)

    Poor Tammy. :)

  • On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2010 @ 04:34pm

    Damn Double post crap!

    Gotta get a new keyboard :(

  • On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2010 @ 04:31pm

    Couple things:

    1. Can we *please* stop confusing the "music" industry with the "recording" industry?

    And can we also *please* stop confusing the "recording" industry with the "recording/distribution/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" industry?

    1. The "music industry" is -- in it's broadest sense -- any "music-related" activity which somehow involves money: everything from busking on street-corners, to doing live gigs, etc. etc.

    2. The "recording industry" is any RECORDING of music for money, whether that involves a "label" in the traditional sense, or not. For example -- in the town where I live there are several studios where you can go, and they'll record and mix your music for a fee. They usually have nothing to do with the distribution side of things, which is why a lot of "unsigned" (GENUINELY independent) artists end up with 1000 physical units (CD's nowadays, previously cassette tapes) in their garage or basement.

    3. The ones *really* losing out with so-called "piracy" and suchlike, are the "record/distribute/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" crowd -- primarily the multinational corporate megaliths using front-groups like the RIAA, BREIN, IFPI, etc. to bullshit us into believing that THEY are the "music" industry -- as opposed to the rapaciously greedy, useless shits they really are.

    So can we *please* be clear about what we're discussing?

  • On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2010 @ 04:31pm

    Couple things:

    1. Can we *please* stop confusing the "music" industry with the "recording" industry?

    And can we also *please* stop confusing the "recording" industry with the "recording/distribution/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" industry?

    1. The "music industry" is -- in it's broadest sense -- any "music-related" activity which somehow involves money: everything from busking on street-corners, to doing live gigs, etc. etc.

    2. The "recording industry" is any RECORDING of music for money, whether that involves a "label" in the traditional sense, or not. For example -- in the town where I live there are several studios where you can go, and they'll record and mix your music for a fee. They usually have nothing to do with the distribution side of things, which is why a lot of "unsigned" (GENUINELY independent) artists end up with 1000 physical units (CD's nowadays, previously cassette tapes) in their garage or basement.

    3. The ones *really* losing out with so-called "piracy" and suchlike, are the "record/distribute/screw-the-artists/lobby-for-ever-longer-copyright-terms" crowd -- primarily the multinational corporate megaliths using front-groups like the RIAA, BREIN, IFPI, etc. to bullshit us into believing that THEY are the "music" industry -- as opposed to the rapaciously greedy, useless shits they really are.

    So can we *please* be clear about what we're discussing?

  • On the post: Keith Urban Supports Unauthorized Downloaders… Except When He Doesn't

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2010 @ 04:49am

    Re:

    So you *do* officially just reiterate what Mike said, then?

    What part of "All in all, it sounds like those who he signed his life away to....probably sat him down and had a chat" didn't you bother to read, exactly?

    Of course, it makes perfect sense that you would unfailingly regurgitate the labels' claims, just as it makes perfect sense that "Sam I Am" would consistently fail to understand how drastically shorter copyright terms would be beneficial to him/actively crusade for digital totalitarianism while blaming the victims.

    Wow, IP apologist trolls really *are* stupid.

  • On the post: Keith Urban Supports Unauthorized Downloaders… Except When He Doesn't

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 11:51pm

    Re: Re: Pardon the double post:

    My bad --- the TRACK-LISTINGS were mentioned on her myspace blog.

  • On the post: Keith Urban Supports Unauthorized Downloaders… Except When He Doesn't

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 07:56pm

    Pardon the double post:

    "Sam" and I are pals from way back (smirk) :)

    As to the Lily Allen thing: nope, wasn't her "labels" website. It was her myspace. Her attempted excuses for the mixtapes were that she didn't understand the industry at the time.

  • On the post: Keith Urban Supports Unauthorized Downloaders… Except When He Doesn't

    Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 07:52pm

    Re:

    "Enemies of free speech" etc.

    And here I thought you were just a glorified lighting tech with a penchant for weepy sob-stories about how you hated the RIAA because of how they "extort" you whenever you use "their" content in one of your fashion-shows.

    (Funny, but that almost kinda makes me think that you'd BENEFIT from drastically-shorter copyright terms....more fashion-show-type "content" in the public domain, etc.) Silly me -- obviously spamming tech/p2p/copyright-related boards with the same recycled RIAA talking-points and apologizing for corporate misconduct is more your speed. :)

    As for your "influence" -- heh. You're that big of a fish? Weren't you over on p2pnet whimpering about how you flew all the way to England, and "Lammy" wouldn't even see you?

    Ah well, at least you've finally outed yourself as the unflinching apologist for corporate fascism we already knew you do be. (Kinda explains why you keep calling anybody who disagrees with you "anarchists" and suchlike.

    Your "influence"? What? Do the architects of digital feudalism need an expert in "showcase ventilation?" :)

    Try again, schmuck. :)

Next >>