Henry Emrich 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (145)
-
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
-
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2010 @ 11:12pm"Straw man", anyone?
1. Are you referring specifically to *me*, or to other commenters? Or are you simply using "you" in a generalized sense to denote the entire virtual online "crowd"?
It would really help to understand that.
2. The assumption that the existing state of intellectual property has supposedly "never prevented anyone from providing for their family" is.....wow, what orifice did you pull *that* one out of, exactly? (Just out of curiousity).
Hmm, really expensive pharmaceuticals where one corporation has exclusive monopoly "protection" over it, instead of the vaunted "market competition" about which we lie to ourselves, how about that. It's a little off the "putlic domain" topic, but it *is* the sort of runaway IP "law" that effects quite a lot of folks. Why do you think so many new medications and procedures are so expensive?
Maybe the "captive market" provided by the existing version of IP law (patent 'protection") has something to do with it. Hell, considering the nearly instantaneous -- and PRECIPITOUS -- decrease in prices when "generic" versions of medications are finally allowed, there might even be something to that, I dunno.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
Now, I'm pretty good at detecing "subtexts", here, and the basic subtext of your last question was neither innocent, nor "just out of curiosity". If you are trying to make the claim that IP law has never killed -- or even harmed anyone (prevented them from "providing for their family"), then I suppose people in third world nations who are prevented from access to affordable anti-AIDS medication would count, no?
But as for the other stuff -- how about every media-related startup that gets sued into oblivion by way of "cease and desist" bullshit, hmm? Not just talking about Bittorent sites, either. Check the rates on indemnifying yourself, if you try to be an Internet broadcaster, sometime.
But hey, go right ahead: consider the OTHER stuff (books, music, the shared cultural heritage of the last century) a mere "frill", which makes the perpetual monopoly bullshit just fine. As for the "passionate" aspect -- anyone who is not *really* annoyed by what these corporations are doing, hasn't been paying attention.
But thanks for the idiocy. Real nice to see you couldn't even be bothered to invent a "handle" for yourself.
"Just out of curiosity", which of the media megacorps do you work for?
Or is that you, "Anti-Mike", to chicken-shit to actually post under your previous handle? -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2010 @ 03:27pmThe REAL point every is missing:
1. "laws" are only enforceable, to the extent that they can be enforced. (Tautological, yes -- also true.)
What I mean by this, is that if ENOUGH people not merely RESENT a given "law", but actively rebel against it -- AND understand why they are doing so -- then no attempt to jack-boot that "law" back into force again, CAN succeed.
So the corporate megaliths and their various lick-spittles don't give a shit about the public domain? Who gives a shit? Smack them out of the way, by VIOLATING "copyright" as often, and as gleefully as possible. Because Y'know what? *THEY* (the monopolists) violated THEIR side of the "Copyright Bargain" the millisecond they started lobbying for term extension.
Those the (corporate) media deride as "pirates" are actually the biggest benefactors to world culture out there, right now, in that they actively keep cultural "product" in circulation that would otherwise have been seen as "not commercially valuable".
But more importantly, they keep alive the notion that culture itself is -- or at least, SHOULD be -- bigger than mere "commerce".
So really, the only rational choice is: if they (the Power-Elite) won't "permit" us a vibrant and flourishing "Public Domain" -- then we (everybody else) will FORCE them to do so.
And there's absolutely nothing they can do to stop it:
Every new "law" just pisses people off worse, and fuels the creation of ever more robust P2p technology.
We've been laughing at their ludicrous pro-monopoly propaganda since back in the "Home Taping is killing music" era.
Every new attempt at DRM is cracked relatively quickly. (Okay, Ilok is an exception, but the mere fact corporations using it want you to BUY an Ilok hardware-dongle to even be able to use their supposedly "Free" demo versions seriously hampers those corporations from actually getting very far commercially, AND makes them look ludicrous, to book.)
There is very literally nothing -- no possible response or justification the pro-monopoly faction can offer -- that even sounds halfway credible: they're greedy little shits who will do anything and everything they can, just to "keep squeezing the nickel 'till the Buffalo shits."
That's all it is, and all it ever was.
But they've already lost: the combination of tech-savvy "pirates" and several decades of their OWN corporate propaganda efforts making them look like greedy corporate pond-slime too care of that.
That's one of the reasons I'm having a happy new year -- because I know that no matter *what* they do, they've already lost. AND, more importantly, THEY know it, too. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 08:17pmRe:
Whoa! Aren't they one of the companies pressing for longer terms? Somehow, this doesn't actually surprise me that much.
-
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 03:11pmRe: Re: Whoa -- even it's DEFENDERS are mind-numbingly dumb!
"Intellectual property (or privilege) maximists. Copyright is a subset of intellectual property and so are patents. The problem is intellectual property in general, not just copyright."
Exactly! The first step, is to recognize a limited-term monopoly privilege for what it is, and stop trying to turn it into something else. Stop trying to turn it into (as another troll over on another board put it) "The Sacred Right To Property".
If they'd just admit the importance of the Public Domain, by ACTUALLY ALLOWING stuff to "fall" into it on schedule, it wouldn't be so bad.
As a side-note, has anybody else ever wondered about the "Framing" implicit in describing entry into the public domain as a "fall?" Of course, when Anti-Thought describes the Public Domain as "thrown to the Masses", it's pretty clear that the monopolists and their apologists operate from some kind of Nietzche-esque worldview, where they consider themselves "Supermen" of some kind.
Hence, their frantic desire to monopolize and control every element of culture in perpetuity, while disguising it as the "Sacred Right of Property".
You're not an Ubermensch, Anti-Thought.
Elitism sucks ass. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 02:02pmStupidity is obviously contageous:
1. The point I was making with the supreme-court decision, was that, IN that decision (and irrespective of the minutae of the particular case to which it was being applied), they state WHY a monopoly privilege such as copy"right" was permitted in the first place.
If you think you can obfuscate the issue by nitpicking distractions, then you're simply another troll. Now, either refute the claim that copy"right" is actually a PRIVILEGE, predicated on a vibrant Public Domain, or kindly be a good little troll and STFU.
2. Fox "news?" My ass.
3. "Nobody cares about one country's draconian laws": absolutely correct. The movement to question, rethink -- or even REFUTE -- the necessity and purpose of copyright is global. This is what IP apologists don't get: they can't wrap their tiny little minds around the notion that THEIR side brought all this on:
A. Bribing their way into (oops, I mean "lobbying for") term extensions -- ever-longer terms, with ever-shorter intervals where they're NOT whining about it. Plus, thanks to the "Eldred" decision, they've cleared the way to keep extending terms INDEFINITELY, just so they retain the legal fiction that the term on the books is "limited" at any given time. Copyright "Bargain?" Don't make me laugh.
So we *KNOW* what the real agenda is, Anti-Thought, because we SEE IT IN ACTION. (Although, I really do love your latest little fit of inconsistency: "75 years is too long, 28 years is way too short", remember?
Except, of course, for Disney (and, presumably, any other corporation that is still "using" the content, in which case it "shouldn't" EVER enter the public domain.
See his proposal? OPEN-ENDED copyright monopolies for anything being "used" in any fashion whatsoever, and AT LEAST 28 years of monopoly for stuff that's NOT being used. (Gee, looks suspiciously like the tactic of periodically reissuing "remastered" versions of "classic" films every few decades, or the "Box Set"-type killing the labels made off the Beatles material....but nah, couldn't be.) :)
So come on up, IP apologists: please pray tell, prove to us that copy"right" was intended to be what the corporate interests have turned it into. Hell, while you're at it, feel free to explain how patent (copyright's bastard sibling) "shouldn't" ever expire, either.
(Bonus if you can do it WITHOUT noticing the inevitable resemblance to medieval crafting guilds.)
The only thing that really makes me happy about reading Anti-Thought's fumbling little stabs at IP apologetics is the knowledge that he's probably the best "they" can do. Their position is pretty much indefensible, so their reduced to clunky metaphors about "cooking dinner" and "restoring the balance" by way of draconian bullshit.
Nope. Not gonna stand for it. I've debated corporate sock-puppets like Anti-Thought before, and, by now, there's pretty much no way for them to recover ANYTHING even resembling respectability, and they know it.If the best It can do is some nonsense about Hamburgers, "cooking dinner", and how I supposedly kick a dog that I don't even OWN, we have absolutely nothing to worry about -- just so long as we make sure to both refute their half-witted nonsense, AND treat them like the sad little frauds they really are.
Because Y'know what? If we even BEGIN to given them the benefit of the doubt, then their corporate paymsters win, YET AGAIN.
So tell us again, Anti-thought: please explain how open-ended copyright terms don't violate the "copyright bargain" (assuming, of course, you even admit that it exists.)
Last point: I can get a hamburger at pretty much any fast-food joint, lunch-wagon, or restaurant I go to. It's called "market competition", and, considering how often corporate sock-puppets like you tend to use it to justify corporate oligarchy, you should at *least* know the word.
Peace out, Y'all :) -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 09:45amAnti-Thought deserves everything It gets
Of course "everybody has the right to have an opinion". And? Nobody has said anything about Anti-Thought not being permitted to "have an opinion".
The Nazi party was "allowed to have an opinion" about the (supposed) threat of "world Jewry". The anti-Obama crowd are totally free to have "an opinion" about Obama's supposed Kenyan birth-certificate.
That's not the issue, and you know it:
1. Please do us all a favor, and provide some evidence for Anti-Mike's supposed "good points". I've never seen any of them. All *I've* ever seen It do is post the equivalent of "NO! You're WRong!" over and over, with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Oh wait, there *is* something else It does: routinely defend the absolute WORST aspects of the existing IP "law", while advocating stuff that is even WORSE. It doesn't give a shit about the Public domain, by It's own admission, and cites the fact that It supposedly has a 26-year-old copy of a book whose title It Can't even manage to SPELL, as "evidence" to support the claim that the public domain is irrelevant.
Then it advocates that copyright monopolies NEVER expire, so long as the "owners" is "still using them". In other words, it even Out-maximalizes the "maximalists".
Really, I'm tempted to think that Anti-Thought is a sockpuppet -- a very well-crafted parody of the stupidest possible corporate IP shill, but at the same time, I really can't see a free-culture advocate/copyright skeptic as being able to come up with the drivel it advocates.
But nobody ever said It didn't have a "right" to it's "opinion". By the same token, those of us who wish to do so, have a "right" to regard It as a troll, or simply, abysmally stupid, when it advocates a scenario that is even WORSE than the current state of affairs.
A lot of folks keep saying stuff like "just ignore him, and he'll go away", but I really don't think that's true. The only way to deal with Anti-Thought, is to get It to where It has to admit it's REAL agenda. Anti-Thought started the comment-thread with the claim that the public domain is irrelevant, defended copyright by way ofa COOKING metaphor, and then ended up actually advocating that copyright monopolies be essentially "open-ended" (thus, essentially anhialating the Public Domain entirely.)
Way to go, Anti-thought: you've successfully "outed" yourself as a maximalist, FAR more overtly than I -- or anybody else -- could ever have done.
Way to go! :) -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 08:15amWHaaaaat?
"My feeling is that in the case of Disney, none of their products should be out of copyright, because they continue to work with them, and continue to tend their products well."
What? Seriously? So, since Disney is *still* making NEW stuff involving Mickey Mouse, none of the older stuff involving Mickey Mouse (or any of the other characters they've been using for nearly a century) should enter the Public Domain?
Wow, talking about Big-Media's ultimate wet-dream! "So long as you're still *working with them* --- which presumably means creating *new* stuff that involves the characters, etc. -- there's no "threat" of expiration.
Still doesn't address the "parody" issue. (Anybody else see the South Park episode involving the Jonas brothers and Mickey Mouse? Pretty sure even under the EXISTING system, Disney didn't have shit to say about that.)
"Sadly, copyright law doesn't have any simple way to recognize the difference between moldy stuff ignored by a dead artist's heirs for 50 years, and disney's active use and reworking of their products."
Which is exactly why copy"right" privileges were *supposed* to only last for a very strictly limited period of time.
But hey, I love how you deliberately misunderstand the problem -- yet again. What has J.D. Salinger done over the last 50 years or so? I mean, yeah, he's become a total recluse who hasn't actually written anything since "Catcher in the Rye" -- EXCEPT to surface long enough to have some guy's book suppressed. But it's nice to see you haven't actually been paying attention.
"Until that gets fixed, there will always be a huge tension. In the end, Disney is doing a better job at preserving history than most others. Do you really want to discourage that?"
And I'll ask again (VERY gently, so as not to be accused of "anger" again): how exactly would a significantly shorter copyright-term PROHIBIT Disney from continuing to do so?
1. They'd still have access to the *original* material (You know...the stuff they periodically, DELIBERATELY throw back "in the vaults" for a decade or so, just so they can periodically bring it back out for "limited edition" re-issues). Nothing to stop them from continuing to do such reissues -- EVEN on stuff that had "fallen" into the public domain.
2. Disney stuff is very frequently parodied (remember the "family guy" episode partially done in the style of "classic"-era Disney?), but you don't see the "authorized" stuff losing value as a result. Copyright law still "permits" such parody/satire, primarily because Big Media hasn't been able to get the law changed.
(Not that Anti-Thought would mind, but *I* personally think that legally empowering "rights-holders" to have even MORE stuff forcibly suppressed via copyright law would be a bad step.)
3. Have you ever bought any "content" at a used bookstore, or record store? You can thank exceptions to existing copyright-law, yet again, if you have. (Good example of that is likely the copy of "Heechee Rendezvous" It keeps using as "evidence" that the Public Domain is unnecessary.)
I *really* doubt that Anti-Thought purchased it 26 years ago, from an "authorized" location.
Anti-Thought isn't really here to "discuss" this stuff, and It obviously has no understanding of the issues. Otherwise, It couldn't seriously advocate that copy"right" monopolies last IN PERPETUITY, so long as a corporation happens to still be producing NEW "content" which in some fashion references it's OLDER content.
(Although, I *can* see how a corporate shill would love something like that: Disney wouldn't even have to bother buying themselves extensions every few decades.)
Nice try, Anti-Thought. You almost, sorta sounded like you said something there. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 03:21amThis doesn't even make sense:
"anger aside"
Thanks for assuming (wrongly) that I am "angry", or that my response to Anti-Thought's persistent efforts at trolling are something they're not.
But hey, let me humor you, and assume that they *were*.
I'll ask you right up front: why in the FUCK shouldn't people be "angry" about the bullshit going on, in relation to IP "law"? How exactly can the constant whimpering for ever-longer copy"right" terms/more draconian sorts of "enforcement" NOT elicit some sort of anger?
Quite frankly, if you're NOT "angry" over this bullshit, you're either NOT paying attention, or you actively SUPPORT what the corporate "entertainment industry" is trying to do.
In either case, that's a fairly serious problem.
"copyright DOES further creativity. the musicians i know would gladly turn their work over to djs and other artists to be remixed and reworked, hell many would give it to their fans for free, but they are hesitant to see their future Great American Album be handed over to a big-money distribution house to rework the format, album art, track listing, etc and be cut off from all ties.
Several things wrong with that:
1. If the "musicians you know" would be "happy" to permit remixes, etc., then by definition, they are going to like/enjoy/approve of SOME of the remixes more than others.
Let's take this back a step: parody and satire. One of the big exceptions to current copyright law is where it explicitly permits parody/satire, EVEN WHEN such parodies utilize the "heart" of the composition. (Take, for example, "Slim Anus" -- the Insane Clown posse parody of Eminem's "The real slim Shady.).
Under existing copyright law, "artists" have exactly ZERO control over parodies/satires of "their" content -- EVEN THOSE THEY MAY PERSONALLY LOATHE. Y'know what? That's the POINT. The exception is there specifically to prevent such parodies and satires from being suppressed, EVEN if the person being satirized DOESN'T LIKE IT.
In any case, what does that have to do with the claim that copyright "encourages creativity"? At least from the point of view of parody/satire, it's the EXCEPTION to copyright that "encourages" creativity.
Or are you -- just for another example -- going to try to say that "Weird Al" Yankovic isn't "creative"?
As for your other claim, about the "potential Great American Album", it basically amounts to the claim that the "musicians you know" would simultaneously be glad to "permit" remixes and give "free" (gratis) copies of songs to DJS, but still want some kind of "control" over distribution. Why?
Does anybody *really* think that the "celebrity lifestyle" implicit in your "Great American Album" nonsense is actually predicated on Copyright? The labels have been requiring artists to forfeit "creative control" (INCLUDING COPYRIGHT) FOR DECADES, as a REQUIREMENT for gaining access to the corporate Hype-Machine.
Even under the current system, artists aren't permitted to exert their "artistic control" to get parodies and satires suppressed.
So tell me again? How exactly does the monopoly privilege of copyright "incentivise creativity?"
I personally don't believe that it does. Nor do many others. In fact, I'd go so far as to state that barring exceptions like the one related to parody and satire, copyright is more of an IMPEDIMENT to creativity.
In any case, attempts to rescue copy"right" from the dustbin of history are pretty much futile at this point, because even granting the notion that copy"right" IS good, or even "necessary" for creativity, we've reached the point as a culture, where it has metastasized into something that really does damage the rest of the culture.
But hey, thanks for the completely incoherent response to a question nobody asked. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 12:46amAnti-Mike = "Anti-Thought"
Techdirt's own resident IP-fascist troll, "Anti-Mike", prides Itself on being dismissive and flippant towards It's intellectual and moral betters -- namely, Nina Paley.
Over on the "it's not middlemen" thread, Anti-Mike offered the following bit of snarky non-sequitur:
"In the end, this seems a common theme in your stuff. You foolishly did something, and then except the world to change for you."
The problem with this, of course, is that the corporate media megaliths which Anti-Mike reflexively defends, have been doing exactly what It accuses Ms. Paley of doing, for DECADES:
1. Every new technological innovation that Empowers "the Masses"? Corporate lobbyist front-groups portray it as the Devil incarnat. VCR = Boston Strangler. Home Taping is killing music. P2p "piracy" funds terrorism, blah blah blah.
2. When this pattern of "crying wolf" and attempting to get Government to ban such empowering technologies results in nothing but the corporate lapdogs looking like the money-grubbing, technophobic, monopolist that they *really are*, anybody with even half a brain and/or the ability to track their pattern simply stops even giving them the benefit of the doubt, and assumes -- rightly -- that, whatever their latest cycle of lobbying/whining/lying, their REAL reason is nothing but the unmitigated, profligate greed-mongering at many corporations seem to excel.
3. When, after decades of relentless misinformation about the nature, purpose, and LIMITS of copyright, and repeated attempts to destroy anything which kinda, sorta, maybe *might* lead to copyright EVEN BEING QUESTIONED, they've turned copyright itself into a pernicious joke which the vast majority of folks simply ignore, and a sizeable proportion of the population UTTERLY HATE....well, the money-grubbing vermin, and their lobbyist-lapdogs have NOBODY to blame but themselves.
4. If, after ten years of watching "Intellectual Property" become one vast corporate culture-rape, Anti-Mike can't quite wrap it's tiny little mind around why It would be regarded as a vile little bug, worthy only of contempt and dismissal.....well, you get the idea.
Of course, It could demonstrate itself as something other than a mindless troll by actually *DOING SOMETHING* to help restrain "Intellectual property" law WHICH IT HAS, IRONICALLY ENOUGH, ADMITTED IS "TOO PERVASIVE", instead of trolling around TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE STATUS QUO.
Of course, It won't do anything of the kind, because It's obviously too busy wanking frenetically over the joyous prospect of perpetual copyright terms.
What part of "you support evil, draconian bullshit" don't you understand, Anti-Thought? -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 09:31pmAnti-Thought, refuted yet again:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
Important quote from the article (which completely de-fangs Anti-Thought's entire "argument":
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in Fox Film v. Doyal, the court said,
The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors. "
The runaway monopoly privilege mis-named copy"right" is neither "natural", nor sacrosanct. Anti-Thought, and assorted other IP apologist trolls, keep trying (vainly) to misrepresent the rising tide of IP skepticism as some sort of "irresponsibility", or "lawlessness", but in fact, it's nothing of the kind.
IP apologists (PARTICULARLY those involved in "artistic" pursuits like music, writing, film-making, etc.) tend to exhibit a rather extreme level of hubris, when they mistakenly claim that their particular creative work -- whatever it may be -- is NOT inextricably indebted to the very "Public Domain" which their frenzied quest for ever-longer and more draconian copyright terms is, for all intents and purposes, destroying.
You're draining the cultural "ocean" upon which your very existence as creative artists depends, just to squeeze a few more decades/centuries of "clearance" bribes.
It's bullshit, it's pernicious, and above all, it's ARROGANT. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 08:59pmRe: Re: Reasons I regard "Anti-Mike" (AKA "Anti-Thought) to be a troll/shill
Glad you agree! :)
(See, Anti-Thought -- I DO know how to click "reply to comment" --- when it's an actual comment, as opposed to your fetid pools of cyber-drool.) :)
Peace out, Y'all! :) -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 08:30pmReasons I regard "Anti-Mike" (AKA "Anti-Thought) to be a troll/shill
1. It's Handle.
Anti-Thought's preferred moniker positions Itself explicitly as the "polar opposite" of Mike Masnick. This is obviously a not-so-subtle "dig" intended NOT merely to demonstrate Anti-Thought's antipathy to the copyright-skeptic position frequently expressed here on Techdirt, AND insult Masnick in the process.
Interesting that Anti-Thought (staunch defender and apologist for the present sorry state of IP law AND the multinational corporate megaliths who BOUGHT the laws into their current form), STARTS by "copying" Masnick's name! Oh wait, my bad -- current IP law STILL contains a loophole related to parody and satire. :)
2. The second reason Anti-Thought strikes me as either a troll, or a shill, is the fact that It so consistently manages to weasel out of actually giving meaningful and substantive responses. (See, for example, It's latest inane sputum about how It won't respond to my statements because I ostensibly haven't "learned" how to hit "reply to comment".)
Anti-Thought obviously believes (I can't quite bring myself to say "thinks", because "thought" is so self-evidently beyond It's capacity), that It's jabbering is informative, valuable, or even entertaining.
False on all three counts.
I'm not "angry" here, folks -- I'm just really tired of this Thing's jabberings, and have personally come to the conclusion that the best way to counterbalance It's idiotic nonsense, is to simply subject it to the ridicule, scorn and contempt which It so richly deserves, for for which It so desperately begs (for example, with it's assertion that the notion of IP is somehow "natural", and has something to do with cooking dinner.) :)
Anti-Thought can (and probably will) continue to pollute Techdirt with it's incoherent, IP apologetics, and I'll probably continue to treat it like the mindless, corporate shit-stain it so obviously is.
But no, I'm not "angry"....not by a long shot. :)
Personally, I think a brisk game of "troll-smashing" can be both amusing and enjoyable, from time to time. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 08:06pmWhy would I hit "reply to comment"?
1. From reading other Techdirt threads where Anti-Thought has dribbled it's drool, it's obvious that It never actually answers any of the points raised against It. Moreover, the fact that It would try to dodge answering any of the points I -- or anybody else -- raise by whining that I didn't "hit reply to comment" first, is actually pretty telling.
Add yet another rhetorical device to Anti-Thought's arsenal of troll-tactics.
For the record, no I don't have a dog (not that it's actually particularly relevant to the discussion). Nor would I kick it, if I did. Methinks "spamming" was the wrong word-choice. "Trolling?" "Reiterating idiotic RIAA propaganda?" I honestly don't know what to call what Anti-THought is doing (except to realize that whatever it's trying to do, It's failing miserably.
So I reiterate again: why would I "hit reply to comment", when Anti-Mike never actually *says* anything? Reiterating tired, already-debunked Big-Media buzz-phrases, and offering half-witted analogies about "cooking dinner" doesn't count.
Poor troll! -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 06:20pmAnti-mike needs to read this:
http://questioncopyright.org/redefining_property
As horrifying as it may be to realize, prior to 1865, there actually WERE people -- organized groups of people -- who defended the institution of Race-based chattel slavery.
The parallels between apologists for slavery, and IP-apologists are actually quite staggering:
1. Both attempted to claim that the pernicious institution they were defending was somehow "natural".
2. Both involved a lot of very-wealthy folks whose various "business-models" depended were imperiled.
3. Both tried to make the issue about "property".
But Y'know what? the pro-slavery arguments didn't hold water, and the entire notion of slavery as an issue of "property" would RIGHTLY be seen as morally abhorrent, nowadays.
So no, Anti-thought, the runaway monopoly privileges you defend are NOT "natural", and it is ultimately VANISHINGLY unimportant if reforming/abolishing the pernicious bullshit you defend, results in a few "business-models" being destroyed. I'm pretty sure the folks involved in the "Middle Passage" were inconvenienced, too.
Fuck off, Anti-mike. Your idiotic attempts to spam Techdirt are completely and utterly inept, and, frankly, will be met with nothing but the scorn and ridicule they so richly deserve.
"A troll, a shill, or a shitroll" -- I love it! :) -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 06:02pmNo, if you make dinner, you're not "obligated" to share it with anyone else. BUT (and here's where comparisons between PHYSICAL property and Intellectual "property" inevitably fail:
1. You're not permitted to extort people for making the SAME meal you cooked. (Chicken soup recipe "clearance", would be seen as ludicrous.)
2. You COULD open a restaurant and sell the food, yeah. But what YOU (and all other IP apologists) are defending is the presumed "right" to be paid to "permit" anybody else to open a competing restaurant. That's what the medieval guilds were about.
You're an idiot, "anti-mike". Barring the initial error of the "Statute of Anne", the state-granted monopoly privileges of copyright and patent wouldn't exist. And before you try to make this an issue of "property", remember that it was historically permitted for some persons to own "other" persons (namely, Blacks.) It was also "legal" to attempt to prevent inter-racial sexual intercourse ("miscegenation").
The fact that you don't give a shit about the Public Domain is pretty bad. The fact that you misunderstand limited-term monopoly privileges as "natural rights" is worse.
But the fact that you are NOW resorting to clumsy metaphors about "cooking dinner" and "opening restaurants" is pretty telling in itself. You're an idiot, Anti-mike. Just accept it.
You're also a corporate tool, just like the stupid teens paid by the RIAA SPECIFICALLY to download stuff from p2p networks as a propaganda move.
Oh, and as for the supposed dichotomy between "showing respect for the work" via sharing it, and "showing respect for the arrist".....wrong. How about "artists" start showing some respect for the vast pool of Freely (as in gratis) accessible cultural content upon which THEY DEPEND, in order to create new art?
How about Disney -- instead of frantically buying copyright extension when expiration time comes around -- actually admit that "Steamboat Willie" was indebted to "Steamboat Bill"?
Perpetual monopoly on the installment plan is evil.
The fact that you don't get that just proves you're either an idiot, or a shill. I can't decide which, but resorting to the "cooking dinner" metaphor strongly indicates "idiot".
Quit trolling. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 04:27pm"Everyone rags on Disney, yet they can take out 70 year old content, digitally remaster it, and sell DVDs of the content in large numbers. It is still a valuable product. Why should they not have rights to it?"
Um, because such "rights" are intended to expire?
Because the "70 year old content" is very often DERIVATIVE from something that went before? The whole "Steamboat Willie" thing that brought "Mickey Mouse" to visibility, for example?
Honestly, I new corporate trolls were stupid, but I *reallY* didn't know they were THAT stupid.
Mike, why do you allow this corporate troll-thing to keep spamming every article?
It never answers questions, just endless, relentless cheer-leading for the multinational corporate "persons" who seem so intent on securing their "right" to perpetual copyright on the installment plan JUST so they can keep monopolizing the content AND squeezing "clearance" fees from everybody else.
Damn, but I *hate* trolls like this. It's only purpose is to paralyze any discussion that might otherwise happen, by way of endlessly reiterating corporate front-group talking points.
If It's not "Sam I am", It sure sounds like him. -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 04:15pm28 years is "too short?"
Why?
You *really* think major-label artists "deserve" to keep squeezing something they did two decades before? Nope. The biggest mistake when the Founding Fathers PERMITTED copy"right" in the first place, was allowing term-extensions, and renewals. If you haven't squeezed *something* out of it in the first seven years, you have absolutely no excuse continuing to monopolize it any further.
Remember, "anti-Thought" (oops, I mean "anti-Mike), that the original *excuse* for copy"right" was as an INCENTIVE to further creativity --- NOT perpetual, passive income for already-wealthy corporate megaliths, and certainly not to provide FURTHER income for those corporate megaliths to spend on lobbying/buying even LONGER copy"right" terms
Why does *anybody* waste the time "debating" this troll-thing, instead of treating It the way It deserves?
I'm, frankly, sick and tired of the gentle, Kid-Gloves approach people take with trolls like this. It can't seem to do anything but reiterate corporate front-group soundbytes.
Frankly, It (and It's troll-brethren which show up on other IP skeptic/copyright-reform/p2p-related) sites and forums) deserve to be treated like the vermin they are.
Be gone, corporate shill....you have no power here.
(or anywhere else, for that matter.) :) -
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2010 @ 04:06pmY'know what's fascinating here?
1. Mike actually posts something defending the Public Domain, and reiterating the blatantly, self-evidently obvious fact that copy"right" was originally intended to only last for an extremely limited period of time. This shouldn't even BE controversial, except, of course, for the fact that silly little trolls like "The Anti-Mike" have been brainwashed into believing that copy"right" monopolies in perpetuity are some sort of fundamental right of human existence.
Nope. The mere fact that the corporate media megaliths continue to BUY themselves ever-longer terms, necessarily means that ALL laws related to your precious monopoly privileges can be changed. The only type of "person" who really stands to benefit from the absurdly-long copy"right" terms currently on the books, are a few already-wealthy, multinational, corporate "persons" who can't even be satisfied with what they've ALREADY managed to buy, but just keep lobbying, and lobbying, and buying themselves ever more draconian, invasive bullshit.
Fuck "Fair use". Fuck "first sale". Nope, the really important thing is making sure the "estates" of artists who've been dead for nearly a century can STILL squeeze revenue from any and all uses to which their (inherited) "property" is put.
Think I'm exaggerating? The "Estate" of Margaret Mitchell attempted to have "the wind done Gone" suppressed. Thankfully, they were swatted down like the IP-troll VERMIN they were, and Y'know what? The book became a New York Times Best-seller.
Why are any of you people actually bothering to "debate" this stupid little IP-fascist troll? He's either a corporate shill, or just too stupid to pull his head out of Jack Valenti's dead ass.
Tell us, "Anti-Mike", was the VCR the equivalent of the Boston Strangler?
Anybody who defends the current state of IP "law" is either an idiot, a troll, or a corporate tool.
Simple as that, really. -
On the post: UK Government Report Shows That Digital Economy Bill Will Cost More Than Highest 'Piracy' Estimates, Drive 40,000 Offline
Henry Emrich ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2009 @ 01:43pmSo I take it "Sam I Am" calls himself "the Anti-mike" now?
'Nuff said. I really love how how tries to portray this as government trying to make people behave "responsibly" (which, I suppose, means placidly obeying any and every "law" corporate lobbyists manage to buy, without regard to it's content, or consequences.
As for the claim that stuff like this is intended to "tip" things in the other direction: are you REALLY that stupid? Every copyright-term extension has been "tipping" things in the direction of "perpetuity on the installment-plan" for DECADES. Hell, by the "logic" of "anti-mike", it would be more reasonable to claim that used bookstores and record stores represent "lost sales", simply because the "rights-holders" (monopolists) don't get bribed....oops, I mean "compensated".
I'm pretty sure, between the poorly-formulated RIAA talking-points, and sermonizing, that I recognize this guy from other boards. "Sam I Am"? Or is it "Reasoned Mind?" Which of your IP-apologist, Corporate shill identities is it, hmmm?
Don't waste the time here, folks -- just another corporate shill regurgitating the same, ill-informed claims they've been making since the "Home taping is killing music" bullshit.
"You" were wrong:
Lemme see if I can explain this. "In response to 'anonymous'" wouldn't really be very useful, because there are several folks posting as "anonymous coward". If it's directed at a specific person --- and they've chosen either to use a "handle" or their own name, then direct it at them.
So no, using "you" wasn't anywhere near sufficient to cover it.
As for your other nitpicking, please do us a favor, and define "profanity": is it the infamous "7 'dirty' words you can't say on TV" as so aptly -- and hillariously -- skewered by George Carlin? Or is it just whatever *you* personally happen to *want* to consider "profane"?
(Strictly speaking -- if we want to play these types of linguistic-category games, the infamous word 'fuck' doesn't strictly speaking, qualify as 'profanity', in that it doesn't involve an oath against a diety, whereas "god-damn" would.
So please, please, precious anonymous comment troll, feel free to stipulate what you consider "profanity" to be, so I (and others) can make sure to totally disregard it.
The other stuff where you claim to have participated in aerospace contracts etc.? Pretty sure a significant proportion of the aerospace industry is dominated by government contractors, no? Of course, that assumes that any of your claims are actually *true*, which is highly debatable, given the fact that you're STILL posting anonymously, and haven't even bothered to create a handle.
Shit (oops, there I go again!), every 12-year-old has an internet "Handle" nowadays.
But hey, nice to see your "response" didn't actually refute any of my examples.
(Hint: it's REALLY hard to sustain any kind of 'conversation' with large numbers of people posting NOT just "anonymously", but under the same default "anonymous" handle. Why don't people *get* this, I wonder.
To respond to PaulT: why do you deride a "copy whatever you want" situation as "utopia"? Haven't you been paying attention this last decade? People have been "copying whatever they want" in droves, and it *really* hasn't turned out bad at all, except of course, for those organizations dedicated to expanding the monopoly privilege of copyright to absurd lengths.
You like money? How about this: drastically-shorter copyright terms would allow people to "legally" bring a lot of "out of print" stuff back into widespread availability. Might not get you super-wealthy like Steven King, but it's just one of the new possibilities for which the technology already exists (Print-on-demand, etc.)
Y'ever heard of "Project Gutenberg?" And besides, EVEN in the "copy whatever you want utopia" that you deride (IE: even with the situation as it exists NOW), it *is* possible to "compete with free". Again -- and realize that this is probably just how I am -- I have my doubts as to whether you're actually paying attention, or a dismissive statement like that wouldn't even be possible.
Last point (for anybody who thinks some of us might be too "passionate" about these issues): the primary reason Lessig lost on the Eldred decision was -- as he put it -- because he couldn't get them to understand that the issue was important. Unless people understand that the issue of runaway corporate power IS important (on many fronts, btw -- not just the copyright or file-sharing thing), those corporations, and their lobbying front-groups, *will* continue to rape the surrounding culture, with impunity.
L8r, y'all. :)