Henry Emrich 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (145)
-
On the post: Keith Urban Supports Unauthorized Downloaders… Except When He Doesn't
-
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 07:21pmRe: Re:
"To avoid it being abolished I would hope that those supporting it can justify it. So far the vast majority of those supporting copyright have been content to not make any reasonable arguments in its favour. Those that do start to make reasonable arguments tend to support drastic reform and are largely lumped on the side of the abolitionists. That fact ensures that for the foreseeable future there will be no great discussion on whether copyright has any use, as those interested in discussion are still battling against those opposed to reform entirely."
1. They *can't* make "reasonable arguments" supporting the current state of copy"right" law because they known it's indefensible. That's why they keep bribing their way into ever longer term-extensions, and desperately trying to get bullshit like ACTA put through, without public scrutiny or comment.
2. The other reason they can't put forward "reasonable" arguments for such monopolies, is that doing so would involve admitting that they ARE monopolies. Intellectual "property" is completely and utterly unlike physical property. Copying is utterly and completely dissimilar to "stealing" a physical object.
So long as they keep trying to make us believe the Orwellian mind-screw that *making more of* something (copyies) = "stealing", they will remain utterly incapable of formulating anything but the inane jabberings we've all come to know and love from the likes of Jack Valenti, "Reasoned Mind" (over on Torrentfreak), "Sam I Am", and, of course, our own resident Zen-Master TAM. ("And...but...unless" is still my favorite thing of his....absolute genius in it's all-encompasing vagueness.)
Any more nonsequiturs, TAM? -
On the post: Keith Urban Supports Unauthorized Downloaders… Except When He Doesn't
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 05:17pmWhy would this be surprising?
Anybody who still expects label-puppets to actually break ranks on the p2p or downloading issue, consistently, is looking for the impossible.
The guy accidentally said something that put the "art" and the "fans" first, and it's pretty obvious that his corporate pay-masters don't like when their serfs do that kind of thing. Interesting how we've gotten to the point where anti-p2p types feel comfortable enough to wink at the issue of copyright monopolies enough to actually mention "mixtapes". (And here *I* thought "home taping is killing music".
Ah, well -- anybody who still takes these corporate pablum-peddlers seriously deserves what they get.
Hmm...the whole thing smacks of Clinton's "But I didn't inhale" bullshit, in regard to marijuana. Gotta preserve a tragically-dysfunctional Status Quo, even if doing so involves mass hypocrisy -- Remember, Kids: even the "anti-piracy" Poster-girl Lily Allen made mp3 "mixtapes" AND DISTRIBUTED THEM ON HER MYSPACE!
Give it another ten years, and even the corporate sell-outs will be admitting ever-so-grudgingly, that they used Napster or The Pirate bay.
That's ultimately how you "win" -- the shift in social norms PRECEDES revision of the "law". More importantly, the "law" only finally DOES get changed when keeping up the charade of "enforcement" becomes blatantly, obviously impossible. -
On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2010 @ 09:00pmHeh.....
1. Expecting Billboard -- nothing but a propaganda rag for the "mainstream media" (read: dying corporate dinosaurs) to actually say anything relevant or informative on the subject of Intellectual "property" is pretty absurd in itself: It's an RIAA corporate rag.
For the same reason, you'll never see or hear anything relevant at the Grammys -- all you see is pampered multimillionaire shills and wannabe-shills whoring themselves to "major label" behemoths which they *already* know will screw them over.
Albini covered exactly why the corporate "industry" is basically one giant cultural shit-stain:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
2. Expecting TAM to actually answer questions or admit he/she/It is wrong about so-called "Intellectual Property", p2p, free culture, or anything else, is likewise absurd: IP apologist trolls aren't here to debate the issues -- they're here to defend the corporate screw-job we've all been getting for decades.
3. If you think monopoly privileges like copyright and patent are neccesary -- let alone desirable -- you have to first demonstrate that they *are* actually fulfilling their stated purpose: DO patent monopolies *really*advance "science and the useful arts?"
Does copyright really *need* to have been extended eleven times in the past thirty years?
To even begin to make a case for defending/excusing such monopolies, you *have* to start by admitting that what is currently on the books is really, really shitty. Copyright terms are WAY to long as it is. Patents *are* mostly about corporate megaliths smashing "unacceptable" competition.
So until -- and unless -- you start by admitting that the Status quo is badly in need of *at least* reform, some of us -- myself included -- are probably going to assume that since you *actively defend* the current state of affairs AND make excuses for the corporate megaliths who have BOUGHT that state of affairs, that you actively support it/them.
Crosbie: Glad to see you posting here! Well thought out, as usual.
(I stopped even being able to give trolls like TAM and "Sam I Am" the benefit of the doubt a long while ago. -
On the post: What's A Bigger Entitlement Mentality? Demanding Old Business Models Must Remain… Or Liking Free Stuff?
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2010 @ 01:36pmExactly
Answer the question:
1. Does 11 copyright term-extensions constitute having GOVERNMENT skew "the market" in their favor?
Yes.
And Y'know what? That's ultimately the point: TAM and other corporate shills keep trying to spin this as in an issue of whether monopolists (oops, I mean "rights-holders") should get to "authorize" such distribution or not, but given the fact that the monopoly PRIVILEGE of copyright was ALWAYS intended to expire --- NOT be granted in perpetuity -- it follows that those granted such privileges would only be able to "authorize" anything DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE MONOPOLY WAS IN FORCE.
Expiration of monopoly means you don't get to "authorize" a DAMN THING. That's what the "public Domain" is. You can consider it "unfair" that the State doesn't grant you (or your corporate pay-masters) perpetual monopoly, but that's just too goddamn bad.
I mean, seriously: 11 extensions in 30 years, the first TEN of which were done in such a way as to keep the very public whose "domain" was being enclosed in the dark? You can't expect ANY even halfway-sensible person to continue taking such monopoly privileges seriously, let alone think they're actually worth preserving.
The bottom line is: the only persons who ever really benefited from copyright were the multinational corporate "persons" involved in the publishing and recording "industries".
Ten term-extensions before the FIRST one even expired? Bullshit. -
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2010 @ 04:36pmWhy bother?
After Reading TAM's idiocy for a while now, I'm actually starting to think that maybe he's smarter than he comes off: his gibberish almost reads like a parody of IP apologist clap-trap and recycled RIAA talking-points.
Has anybody considered the fact that he's actually a sensible person (In other words, an IP skeptic) who is simply here to "play" at being an RIAA lapdog?
Certainly, his "arguments" are excruciatingly bad at the best of times. What makes me think he's actually a sock-puppet or something is the fact that he descends into periodic bouts of almost Zen-like verbiage: "And...but...unless" --- a literal "fill-in-the-blank" objection to anything and everything.
If I didn't know better, I'd compare it to the tendency among FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open-source) computer folk to enjoy self-referential humor and elaborate put-ons.
In all likelihood, TAM is basically the Techdirt equivalent of "Jeff K." -- a gloriously inspired parody of just exactly how abysmally shallow and ultimately self-defeating IP apologist trolls actually are.
http://www.somethingawful.com/hosted/jeffk/
Either that, or he's Jack Valenti's bastard step-son, who hides under his bed at night, shaking uncontrollably because his idol compared the VCR to the "Boston Strangler".
Or maybe he's just "Sam I Am's" other personality.
In any case: why are any of you bothering with TAM at all (other than to treat It like the tragically un-funny joke It really is.)
Just Sayin' :) -
On the post: What's A Bigger Entitlement Mentality? Demanding Old Business Models Must Remain… Or Liking Free Stuff?
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2010 @ 04:05pmMore idiocy from IP apologist trolls -- why does anybody bother "debating" them anymore?
1. Do the 11 copyright-term extensions over the last thirty years constitute "the market" changing, or corporate interests MAKING the government change "the market" in their favor?
Since IP apologists usually believe that they're "entitled" to the monopoly privileges mis-named copy"right" in perpetuity (or for as long a duration as they can buy from their cronies in Government), trying to debate with them is ultimately and completely futile.
Either start by admitting the fact that the lobbyists for the copy"right" cartels have been "stealing" from the Public Domain every time they buy/bribe their way into a longer copyright term, or fail to do so, and demonstrate that you have absolutely no comprehension of what copy"right" actually is, much less the reasoning that was used to *excuse* it's existence in the first place. (advancing "Science and the useful arts", etc.)
Also, either admit the difference between physical objects and intellectual "property", or fail to do so, and demonstrate your own willful ignorance. If you can't even understand the simple fact that COPYING something MAKES MORE of that thing, then you're either an idiot, or willfully dishonest.
Of course, none of them will actually ever *do* any of the above, simply because doing so would fatally undermine every aspect of their misbegotten "thinking" in regard to these topics. Even admitting the EXISTENCE of the "copyright bargain" would require them to stop and consider whether buying longer copyright terms constituted a violation of that bargain.
Admitting that copy"right" is -- intentionally -- the exception, rather than the rule -- would require them to admit that their all-precious monopoly privileges were *really* not about *them*, but are essentially a "bribe" from government, intended to incentivize creativity *for the benefit of the whole public* --- NOT simply to generate a passive income-stream in perpetuity for their descendants.
But Y'know what? If they ever admitted *ANY* of those things, they would no longer be able to apologize for the Status Quo, or the multinational corporate "persons" who have BOUGHT our present sorry state of affairs. -
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2010 @ 08:56pmHe wasn't "prepared" to have his business-model challenged by technology....
Because he "doesn't have that kind of mind".
Valenti probably didn't understand the technology behind the VCR too well, either. Still didn't stop the stupid bastard from comparing it to the "Boston Strangler".
What, Anti-Mike? No non-sequitur gibberish in response?
(Come on now: at least you can manage a "but...unless...plus", or something else equally stupid. -
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2010 @ 07:30pm"only" 11 extensions in thirty years?
Oh....that's fine, then. :)
Seriously tho: ANY extension or -- or even renewal -- is bad.
Gotta give Anti-Mike some credit, ironically. In among his non-sequitur about the sky, he states: "It's all about how you look at things." True. He and other corporate lapdogs see "piracy", while anybody who actually understands the issues sees the entirely justifiable global backlash against runaway corporate privilege.
He's also right that how you view it "doesn't change anything": the "pirates" are correct about the history and justification of IP monopolies. They're also correct that such monopolies don't actually even do what they're *supposed* to do (advance "science and the useful arts"). They are *also* infinitely more tech-savvy than the technophobic morons on the anti-p2p bandwagon.
For once, I actually agree with the guy. :) -
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2010 @ 04:47pmClarifications for Mike:
Hi, Mike:
1. Glad to see that you're willing to come up to speed on these issues, at least partially. Sorry if you decide to take that as "the claws coming out", or whatever, but you need to actually read some of the bullshit we get from copyright apologists, not just here on Techdirt, but other places as well.
2. Copyright and patent are (and yes, folks, I'll keep re-iterating this point every time I post), monopoly privileges granted by the State, for a strictly limited time, and for a very specific purpose. As expressed in the Constitution, to "promote the advance of science and the useful arts". NOT so people are required to bribe the great-great-grandchildren of a song-writer every time they sing "happy birthday" at a birthday party.
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
Ultimately, it all comes down to something called the "copyright bargain". (The situation with patents is similar, which I'll get to in a bit.)
One of the clearest explanations of the Copyright bargain comes from Richard Stallman over at the Electronic Freedom Foundation:
Quoting him:
"The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of a deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call this concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayers' money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our money."
"But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public? Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every issue of copyright policy is part of this question. If we misunderstand the nature of the question, we will tend to decide the issues badly."
"The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors. In practice, authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the publishers, not the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of the benefits, though authors may get a small portion. Thus it is usually the publishers that lobby to increase copyright powers. To better reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this article refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of copyright powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as “readers,” even though using them does not always mean reading, because “the users” is remote and abstract."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
3. Every copyright term extension represents a violation of the copyright bargain, in that somehow, those who have been *permitted the privilege of monopoly* on condition that they eventually *stop* being able to gouge other users for access to it ("sampling" clearance, etc.) just don't want to do it. They don't want to come through with *their* side of the bargain, which was the only thing that justified (or more exactly, excused) such monopoly privileges in the first place.
So your first, and most basic error is failing to understand that copyright and patents ARE monopoly privilges, at all. Then you compound that error by saying that you think the expiration of such monopoly privileges is "unfair".
Think of it this way:
Say you sell corn. Should the State grant you (and your heirs) exclusive monopoly franchise over being able to sell corn? Or, how about having the State "permit" others to sell corn, but mandate that everybody else selling corn pay *you and your heirs in perpetuity* for the "privilege" of entering the corn-sale market?
That might sound like a stupid example, Mike, except for the fact that at least a perpetual monopoly franchise on corn would *require you and your heirs to CONTINUE GROWING AND SELLING CORN*. The latter situation (where your family gets to charge other corn-growers "clearance fees" in order to allow THEM to grow and sell their own corn, is more closer to situations like copyright and patent, in that your heirs would get paid to "permit" others to do something.
THe rule of thumb with stuff like copyright and patents is: the shorter and less restrictive the monopoly privileges are, the less damaging they are.
The primary reason many people (myself included) are increasingly in favor of abolishing them entirely, is simply the fact that the terms and scope of such monopoly privileges (particularly in terms of copyright length) have been increased steadily, something like forty times in the last thirty years.
To be blunt: monopolists (and wannabe monopolists) have spent decades being rapaciously greedy, and doing everything in their power to attempt to get copying-related technologies suppressed BY THE GOVERNMENT. For example, Jack Valenti from the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) compared the Consumer VCR to the Boston Strangler, during congressional hearings where his organization attempted to get the VCR banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/31/1622232
So, again being as forceful as I know how to be without turning into a total asshole about it: if the multinational corporate megaliths who "own" the vast majority of such copyright monopolies can't bring themselves to be satisfied with 25, 50, 75, 95, or 150 year monopolies, then they DESERVE NO MONOPOLY PRIVILEGES WHATSOEVER.
Likewise, if the evidence is amply clear that copyright and patent privileges do NOT, in fact "advance science and the useful arts", but instead allow the aformentioned multinational corporate megaliths to collude with government in an effort to get potentially innovative/disruptive/competitive technologies suppressed --- well, you get the idea.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
Ultimately, the whole debate about how artists/inventors/creators will "get paid" absent such monopoly privileges is nothing more than a corporate-financed smokescreen. We *know* the major-labels screw artists. We *know* the organizations ostensibly responsible for collecting and distributing royalties screw artists. Further, the closest thing to the small inventor releasing a revolutionary technology on the world most of us have seen, has been the development of the very p2p (peer-to-peer) file-sharing applications which the corporate media megaliths keep trying to destroy.
It's really very simple. A single 7-year monopoly, REQUIRING registration with the copyright or patent office, with no renewals, etc. would be *infinitely* less damaging than the current morass, but, given the frenzied efforts to get longer and longer monopolies over the past several decades, it's extremely dubious as to whether even such very strictly limited monopoly privileges wouldn't simply be "abused", exactly as they are now.
Hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings.
L8r -
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2010 @ 04:02pmRe: Re: This needs to become a meme
"A lot of pro-copyright people think they are free marketers, when they just aren't."
No they don't.
In the vast majority of cases, the term "free market" is nothing but a convenient buzzword/cover-up for the *real* agenda --- total corporate hegemony, enforced by their cronies in Government.
For-profit Corporations (by far the most prevalent and powerful businesses out there right now) are explicitly created by the State, and involve the State granting some really extensive boons and "safety nets" to those utilizing such a business-form: limited liability, legal "personhood" (up to and including the ability to essentially "buy" elections with no restraint whatsoever, thanks to the recent Supreme court decision regarding "citizen's united").
Corporate pond-slime and their apologists wouldn't recognize anything even vaguely resembling a "free" market if it bit them on their cost-externalizing, too-big-to-fail asses. -
On the post: Give A Man A Fish… And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2010 @ 07:52am"Terminator" seeds, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
DRM for crops?
Or would that be "BRM" (Biological "rights" management?)
Care to try again with the claim that saving seeds and planting for the next harvest (so you don't have to BUY them from the supplier every year), is simply an instance of "most farmers" not being "smart or ethical enough" to not "steal" their next season's crops, by doing so?
More IP-troll failure -- but what can we expect from folks who mistake a limited-scope monopoly *privilege* as a "way to honor creativity" (How? By preventing/penalizing *other* creativity!)
IP wouldn't be nearly so pernicious if it was actually allowed to expire in a timely fashion. It would *still* be bad in principle, but at least we'd still be in the realm where it could be called a "necessary evil".
The current system is indefensible, and even the "spirit" of IP as described by apologists doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
Now be good little trolls, and follow the links. If after doing so you can *still* bring yourselves to apologize for some sort of mythical "spirit of IP" even after being shown that it *doesn't* aid invention or innovation, AND having been forced to admit that IP as it currently exists is basically one giant corporate screw-job on the rest of us, then you're probably also the type who still believe Bush's "mission accomplished" bullshit about Iraq. -
On the post: Give A Man A Fish… And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2010 @ 04:45pmCouple more things:
1. Which "aspects of copyright law" do you agree with, exactly? The runaway term extensions? Or maybe it's the back-room lobbying used to purchase such extensions?
This is the part that makes *any* attempted defense of such laws extremely suspect: You refuse to admit that your precious, precious monopoly privileges are *supposed* to expire in a timely fashion. You play dishonest little games like "well, how would *you* feel", as if that's at all relevant.
I'm pretty sure it galls the hell out of Disney that THEIR version of "Snow White" is merely a "derivative work" lacking in any sort of originality.
Attempted apologetics for IP "law" needs to start by admitting the realities of the situation -- which all of you have, yet again, conveniently failed to do:
1. Are copyright and patent privileges (oops, I mean "protection") supposed to expire? If so, why?
2. What exactly are such monopoly privileges "protecting" you from (if not the very "market" you capitalist types are always prattling about?)
No, I don't think that "anyone who agrees with any aspect of copyright law is a "shill for the man". I don't *believe* in "the man". I accept the existence of multinational corporations with a vested interest in distorting a limited-term monopoly privilege into perpetual monopoly on the "installment plan". I also accept the fact that the only reasons one could even attempt to justify such actions is through ignorance, or support.
If you *really* want people to start taking your all-precious monopoly privileges seriously, stop apologizing for organizations like the RIAA, and start supporting drastically reduced copyright terms.
Because Y'know what? Ultimately, it is *your* side that has de-ligitimized copyright and patent by stupid bullshit like comparing the VCR to the Boston Strangler.
So go ahead: please refute any of the points we're raising here. Explain how the "copyright bargain" ISN'T violated by preventing stuff from entering the Public Domain on schedule. Explain to us exactly why already-wealthy corporate megaliths "need" to be "prevented" from the public domain.
As for patent, it's an attempt by the State to prevent companies from trying to do "trade secrets" -- you're granted the *privilege* of monopolizing a given design or technology for a VERY STRICTLY LIMITED TIME, on provision that you publish the design specs of what you want to monopolize, so that when such a monopoly expires, the technology or design can actually be used.
Last thing:
Various "anonymous" posters hurling insults back and forth is fuckin' genius! It's like the blog has multiple personality disorder or something.
Amazing. -
On the post: Give A Man A Fish… And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2010 @ 01:05pmWhat's wrong with "protecting" (monopolizing) ideas for "a time"?
1. The "time" keeps shifting -- tellingly, getting longer and longer.
2. What exactly are you being "protected" from? Competition? IP apologists can't have it both ways: either you admit that all forms of (so-called) Intellectual "property" are basically a "social safety-net" for the business-class, or you keep lying to us.
So yeah, the "hostility" is understandable.
Y'know, during slavery (yes, I'm going there) there were probably a significant minority of people stupid enough to actually say things like "well, of COURSE slave-holders are permitted to free *their* slaves, but why should anybody be 'forced' to free THEIRS?"
Y'know what, folks? The only thing you're "forced" to do if the misbegotten mistake known as IP is repealed, is to STOP expecting the government to step in a "protect" you from the "market forces" you corporate/business-types otherwise treat like some kind of sacred idol (especially in regard to OTHER "social safety-nets"....especially those which help the non-corporate class).
Enough of this shit. -
On the post: Give A Man A Fish… And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2010 @ 12:57pmSee, THIS is why I don't even bother to read the "comments"
1. None of the copyright apologists can bring themselves to admit that they're defending an expressly-limited monopoly privilege which is SUPPOSED to eventually expire (and thus, allow for the public domain about which they also don't give a shit.)
2. They never actually even admit that there's any such thing as the "copyright bargain", or that corporate front groups have been busily *breaking* their side of that "bargain" for DECADES, whenever they wheedle another term extension out of their cronies in government.
3. They also never even admit that their lobbyist pals have routinely reacted badly to any technological innovation that even potentially empowered users. The mere fact that Valenti compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler necessarily means that he was either a senile imbecile, or lying. That's unforgiveable.
Put bluntly, it is *your* side that started this war...and yes, it IS a war. None of us actually expect you to formulate a coherent defense of IP "law" as currently codified (which even *you* know is indefensible.)
What boggles my mind is why in the *hell* we're 80 comments deep in a thread that basically highlights something blindingly obvious: namely, that the monopoly privileges misnamed intellectual "property" have as their SOLE intention to make knowledge (and products BASED upon that knowledge) scarce, in order to allow those monopolizing such knowledge to gouge their "captive market" at whim.
They understand this. What's most amusing about these....people (hey, I'm being charitable here), is that they defend State-granted monopoly privileges as a bulwark of "free-market capitalism".
I don't think it's "extreme" at all, to admit that a given "law" is both morally indefensible and socially damaging.
Speaking strictly for myself, until -- and unless -- they:
1. Own up to the real history of so-called "Intellectual Property" (starting with the fact that it *is* a system of coercive, State-backed monopoly privilege)
2. Admit that multinational corporations and their lobbyist front-groups have been breaking *their* side of the "copyright bargain" for decades
3. Stop agitating for longer copyright monopolies, and start admitting -- no matter how grudgingly -- the importance of the Public Domain
4. STOP apologizing for an IP system that allows multinational corporate megaliths to try to suppress potentially disruptive (read: customer-friendly) technologies at the barrel of a Government Gun.
Until they do *all* of the above, they are nothing but slimy, dishonest little trolls, and NOTHING that they say should be treated with even the thinnest semblance of respect.
Fuck 'em. Treat 'em like the dishonest little shits that they are. -
On the post: As Developing Countries Gain More Power In Diplomatic Discussions, Will They Push Back On IP?
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2010 @ 08:56pmNot actually that unlikely.....
A few things to notice:
1. The U.S. has spent the last decade (or more) claiming to support democracy while supporting despotic regimes, toppling democratically-elected regimes they didn't happen to like (Mosadegh comes to mind), and demonstrating utter contempt for "international Law" in terms of use of torture, etc. So why exactly would anybody be surprised if some nations have started to view the U.S. global hegemony as "World's only superpower" skeptically?
We're NOT the powerhouse we think we are, folks. We can't even get Iraq done.
2. "Developing" nations see how the U.S. "superpower" status has treated them, and they don't like it. Given the fact that the looser IP regimes many of them advocate are not only staggeringly popular with millions of so-called "pirates" everywhere, are much closer to the sort of "copyright bargain" was originally intended (shorter copyright terms neccesarily mean a more vibrant public domain, for example), AND are a relatively low-risk way to make the U.S. look like the corporate fiefdom it really is....well, let's just say that other nations are -- justifiably -- justifiably tired of U.S. hegemony (especially after the last decade of Bush & Pals.)
Doubltess, Anti-Mike will probably pop up and start accusing me of being insufficiently "patriotic" for these statements, but that's okay, because given the fact that Iraq has turned out to be exactly the sort of pointless quagmire anti-war protesters said it was going to be, maybe the yellow ribbon & Flag crowd who rallied behind Bush & Co. were wrong, after all. -
On the post: EMI/Capitol Records Works Hard To Make Ok Go's Viral Video Less Viral
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2010 @ 04:29pmNo wonder I basically hate everything at this point:
1. If OkGo is supposedly so "fan-friendly" and actually understands how to leverage the Internet to their advantage, then if they were stupid/gullible/greedy enough to actually 'sign' with any label -- much less a "major" label like EMI -- then they have exactly *zero* reason to be bitching.
Sell your soul to Satan, and then complain when he comes to collect.....brilliant.
The only reason I can actually think of for them signing at all, is that despite all their supposed fan-friendliness and anti-DRM stance, and pro-Internet babbling, they *still* harbor some notion of cashing in on the archtypical "celebrity lifestyle" the major labels made possible.
Maybe it's time for artists --- REAL artists, I mean -- to realize that the Internet has basically kicked the shit out of the whole IDEA of "celebrity", and people should stop trying to resurrect it.
(OF course, if they *really* wanted to leverage the Internet, they wouldn't have simply uploaded this thing to centralized setups like Youtube or Vimeo -- they'd also dump it into every torrent tracker they could find, and/or urge their own fans to host it, a la "Grey Tuesday".
But no, instead they'd rather just bitch about it.
Serve's 'em right for "signing" in the first place. -
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2010 @ 06:10pmHow do I Know people are still doing "illegal" drugs?
Anti-Mike's posts confirm that at least ONE person out there is stoned out of his mind. I want whatever you're on, dude!
Seriously. -
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2010 @ 06:07pmEven if they somehow *did* supposedly enact a "law"
"banning" people from the Internet...it won't work.
Kevin Mitnick was ONE guy. Let's say they attempt to "ban" ten thousand pretty tech-savvy "pirates". You think that will actually work? You think they won't just "war-drive" the fuck around, doing destructive (and pretty much untraceable) shit with whatever open Wifi connections they find?
How *would* you even "ban" someone from the Internet, anyway? IP addresses aren't like people's names. The only thing they *might* be able to do is ban people from purchasing Internet connectivity *IN THEIR OWN NAME*, from an ISP. No way to "ban" somebody from using a cracked smart-hone. No way to "ban" somebody whose name you don't know, on the basis of the quality of evidence that leads "anti-piracy" organizations to issue cease and desist warrants to computer printers. The whole notion of "kicking somebody off the Internet" rests on a total misunderstanding of what the Internet is (a series of common protocols -- not even a "thing" in the sense of a single unified network).
The only thing an attempt at "banning" someone -- ANYONE -- from the Internet will do, is piss of a lot of really tech-savvy folks who -- already -- don't give two liquidy shits about what "the law" says in relation to copyright, etc.
This isn't about whether it's a "right" (but that works as a really nice straw-man, btw). It's about what people *will do*. People are *still* doing 'illegal' drugs. Prohibition doesn't work.
Penalizing somebody who understands the ubiquitous -- and necessary -- tools upon which our entire civilization runs (computers and digital networking and such), is simply a recipe for creating an entire new crop of Kevin Mitnick clones. It won't work, because it CAN'T work.
So whether it's "fair" or not is also totally irrelevant. It's not particularly "fair" that if you bring a knife to a gun-fight, you probably get shot. What happened to the MesoAmerican tribes (Aztecs, etc) wasn't particularly "fair" either, but as we all know by now, superior firepower wins.
All the rest of it -- including Drama-troll's dramatic little re-enactment of "Sunset Boulevard" -- is bullshit. -
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2010 @ 08:21amWow.....this entire discussion is stupid
1. Google is nothing but a bunch of gutless, money-mad cowards (just like pretty much every other corporation BY DESIGN. Legal "personhood", anyone?) To expect Google to be anything but "slightly less evil" than *some* other corporations *some* of the time (when doing so doesn't cut into their profit-margins, or actually cost them anything), is wishful thinking, or worse.
This won't "cost" Google anything -- IF they actually follow through with it, the positive PR about how Google "stood up" to dictatorship by essentially "taking it's toys and going home" will more than counter-balance their efforts in China (which were hampered by the Chinese government being up their ass, anyway -- AND cost them big, because they were RIGHTLY seen to be collaborating with the worst aspects of government power.)
This makes Google look "less evil", when in fact, keeping their Chinese search, but doing a half-assed job with the censorship would *in fact* be far more beneficial to dissidents within China itself.
Funny how that works -- Google gets to look good by *failing* to actually do anything against Chinese censorship. Brilliant.
Hi, SAM! :)
Glad to see you're still around, Ol' pal! :)
Interesting (but by no means unprecedented) that you'd link to a conspiracy-related/anti-police state type site like Prisonplanet, NOT to criticize the development, but to excuse it as a "necessary" step.
Really, Sam: we've had this discussion before. You have no idea what copyright law was originally intended to do. You *used* to claim to hate the RIAA member-corporations because they "extorted" you whenever you wanted to use "their" music in one of your fashion-shows, which -- unless I'm really missing something here -- would actually HELP YOU OUT financially, by lowering the aggregate cost to put on your damnable fashion-shows.
Translation: the drastically revitalized Public Domain enabled by shorter copyright terms would HELP YOU.
But you're too stupid to understand that, so you spend tremendous amounts of time spamming technology/copyright/p2p-related websites and blogs with the same, easily-refuted bromides, and frantically apologizing for everything the corporate megaliths and their cronies in government do.
Y'know, that really fascinates me: drastically reduced copyright terms would be FULLY within your interests (in that the RIAA megacorps wouldn't be able to keep "extorting" you as much, but you still spend time cheering their effotts at draconian idiocy on, and trying to actively participate in making the situation worse. (Did you ever get to see your buddy "Lammy"? I remember you were unhappy that you hadn't been able to get to see him, as you mentioned over on p2pnet.)
Glad to see you're still too dumb to realize that Prisonplanet reports on the stuff as a means of DISSENT.
The good part about you being here, is that maybe you can actually teach TAM how to at least inject the semblance -- if not the reality -- of substance in between his RIAA talking-points and pseudo-Zen ramblings.
But seriously: really glad to see you, dude! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy whenever I think back over all the good times we've had! :)