Bitcoin Forum

Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-06/25/regulating-bitcoin

because there is no one single person you can throw in jail or tax

And you cannot stop it by censoring it from servers, impossible to block it from the internet

bitcoin is not the cloud, you can't stop it.

There seems to be only two options: 1) allow bitcoin complete freedom 2) make it illegal to accept bitcoin as payment. The second option seems more likely at the moment, be the first is still possible

The article mentions the 35% attack:

Probably a variant of selfish mining.

Edit: It is indirectly: blocks with the [color-listed] transactions would be ignored by the participants. They came up with a way to do distributed selfish mining.

Making bitcoin illegal may work in some parts of the world for a short period of time, but long term this draconian strategy will prove to be both politically unviable and technically impossible to enforce.

Ditto banning digital culture sharing ("piracy" being the ignorant capitalist slander term).

Agree, long term would not work, just like marijuana prohibition is now crumbling.
But it would be a major setback.

Disagree on the stance of digital files.  What you call "sharing" I call "theft".
Artists have a right to get a fair price for their work.  I don't see how you
can call for universal rights for basic living necessities while undermining
the means to earn money... unless you just flat out admit being a communist,
in which case your view would at least be internally consistent.

This is a very simple concept, even a child could understand it. Let me help you deprogram your brainwashing: Copying is not theft (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4).

I'm so sorry. I realize this must be painful for you (unlearning lies always is), but there is really zero room for debate here. You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

Because the world will, and if you won't, you will be mercilessly left behind in the information age. Just like theists were in the scientific age. Yes, theists are still around today. And capitalists will still be around tomorrow.

But you'll be a laughing stock. Mocked and derided at every turn by enlightened, free-thinking people who will know that intellectual slavery is as much an ethical abomination as the physical sort.

Have you prepared your mind for this outcome ?

This kind of begs a question. Do we own what we make? If you wrote a song would you have the right to ask for payment for someone else to downlad it? Or is intellectual property owned by society? To assume it is owned by society kind of makes the original author an intellectual slave does it not?

No room for debate, GTFOH.

Who is going to pay people to create music, books, and software
If anyone can copy it for free?  

There will be no professional authors, musicians, or programmers
under your model.  That's not any world I'd want to live in.

The article failed the "Can they talk about Bitcoin without a photo of Casascius coins?" test.  Didn't read.  Already know the answer..

The idea of doing something once and then being paid multiple time over for decades after - and with no further effort on the part of the originator - is immoral in my opinion.

Why is that immoral?  You believe people must necessarily trade their time for money?
If that were true, no one would move up in the world, we would all be "wage slaves"

If you create something that stands the test of time, and are able to successfully
market it on an ongoing basis, why shouldn't you be allowed to keep doing so?

Exactly.

Also, if we don't cut the hearts out of human sacrifices at the top of a pyramid, then the sun will stop rising and spring will never come.

That's not any world I'd want to live in.

I can't tell whether you are agreeing with me or mocking me.

Good.

Even though this is off topic and I shouldn't take the bait - here is my 2 satoshi on copying intellectual property.

People are free to choose how they want to share their work. If they want to give it away free, then so be it. I will probably donate to them if I like the work and they accept bitcoin. If they want to charge for their work - more power to them. I probably won't buy it (I do occasionally by music from my favorite artists that have been around a long time), but they should be able to distribute it in whatever way they like. There is plenty of great IP out there that is truly free that I can enjoy without the need to "steal" from people.

The reason I put "steal" in quotes is because it isn't a black and white issue to me. It's like personal space. You may not like me standing just a few inches away from you. I'm not breaking any laws by standing close to you, but it may make you uncomfortable. Some people feel more comfortable being protected by laws that govern how they deal with each other. When the laws make sense, like don't kill people, I have no problem with them. And we could pass a law that says you can't stand closer than 2 feet from a person without their permission.

Now, if a law like that were passed there would be people that would say "that's a stupid law i'm going to violate it because it's stupid." And that's a perfectly understandable attitude. But my point is: why would I want to stand next to anyone who believes in a stupid law like that, and would want to enforce it? Why would you want to even listen to music made by someone that believes in that system that you don't? It seems rather hypocritical to me.

Well first of all, you're using the very commonly mistaken definition of that phrase. Here is what begging the question actually means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

Property is theft! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!)

Only if I was providing power for the electricity of the computers involved by riding a stationary-bicycle which generated electricity. Only then would I ask for some payment.

Why does it need to be OWNED by anyone? Why can it not simply "be"?

The often invisible architecture of your language comes with all sorts of nasty assumptions about the world and your place in it...  Do you see the damage capitalism has done to your mind? Language wires our brains to think a certain way.

You have been taught obedience to capitalism and property since you could speak - your formative years as a human being. Think about that. Think about how difficult it is to unlearn something that you've been learning your entire life - without even knowing you've been programmed!

Once again, songs, thoughts, art - these things do not need to be owned. When nature paints for you a breathtaking sunset or stunning rainbow, does a forest fairy pop from the ground and demand a payment for the pleasure you derived from viewing these things? When you swim naked in a lake, does a mermaid come and ask for payment? No, only humans do this insane thing, and only for the past few thousands years. We lived for half a million years before some asshole looked up at the sun and said, "hey, the sky-god says you should give me your share. If you don't you will be punished by the gods".

Such was the birth of capitalism.

Well where does all this stop?
 
If I give you the recipe for a meal which you find enjoyable, will you pay me a royalty every time you make it?

Do these artists pay a royalty for the very use of words and language - of which they are not the originators - but is the tool they use as the basis of their work?

I'm afraid those days have now gone for the average artist, that where a short period of effort guaranteed a lifetimes comfort with optional idleness.

This is why so many musicians have had to go back to live performance to bolster their lifestyle.

I won't be a wage slave so these people can live charmed lives and nor should you.

Can you imagine having a government agency trying to figure out how they are going to track every bitcoin transaction if another agency has issue(s) with just sending out e-mail(s) that don't expose everybody's address?

It's an important debate: where do ideas come from?  Can they really be owned?  Or are we all just building upon the work of the minds that came before us.  Seeing further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.

if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?

code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..

your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever

do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times

do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....

seriously, is that your mindset?

I think that the option 3) is also possible. The bitcoin will stay as a "parallel" currency "as it is" but with the certain regulation/limitation of its use. Like it is already in some countries, where bitcoin payments are acceptabile in parallel with other currencies and is used by the companies with a solid reputation.

I changed my mind Beliathon.

If you don't even believe in the concept of property or ownership to begin with then you're right:  there is zero room for debate.

Also, if your bitcoins ever got stolen (God forbid),
don't worry, its ok because you never really owned them.  ;)

because regulators dont have idea what it is really
computer scientist (most of them) have problems to understand bitcoin, so normal people are screw..... ::) >:( ??? :P :-[ :'( :)

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?

The article, AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, by N. Stephan Kinsella makes a strong case that intellectual property should be abolished.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf)

Indeed, Bitcoin is most likely parallel currency for a while.

I'm one of the authors of the paper mentioned in that Wired article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5440).
Clearly the Bitcoin community rejected our proposal, it took even 9 hours for my pull request to be closed.

That's fine, I love Bitcoin. The key question is now how could millions of normal people start getting into Bitcoin?
Bitcoin ATM machine's legal in EU and US require photo-ID registration.
So #2, Bitcoin without a photo ID registration is illegal today in EU+US.

Option #3 means only tech savy people will get into it. It poses insurmountably high barriers for large-scale uptake.

Yes, clearly your proposal threatened the fungibility of Bitcoin, an essential property
of currency... So it was rejected for very good reason.

If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else. 

It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace, and that they will be
rewarded for their effort.

We are watching you Mr jonald. We are watching you.

Saying I sound jealous is just a way to avoid answering the legitimate points that have been raised.

Yes, rewarded for their effort and not some superimposed fancy legal wording that can impose an offence on someone for reading and listening.

Artists do not live in total isolation. They draw on the culture around them.

The short-fiction story Melancholy Elephants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholy_Elephants) explores the consequences of taking copyright to it's logical conclusion.
 

The only points I see that you raised in this post are:

1. why create special rules for artists and musicians?

2. artists and musicians should do it as a hobby , not a profession

3. JK Rolling is a billionaire.

to that , I say:

1.  no special rules are needed -- I think anyone should be
allowed to create a digital publication of any kind and copyright it.

2. No, disagree... they should be allowed to do it professionally if the market supports it
as i just got done explaining...

3. so what?  if true, then he earned it.  why does that bother you?

Governments can certainly hinder and slow its progress. But completely stop they cannot.

Do you pay the plumber every time you use the toilet?
Do you pay the electrician every time you flip a light switch?
Do you pay your car manufacturer every time you fill it up with gas? (Yes, that is a real example. (http://boingboing.net/2013/11/13/renault-ships-a-brickable-car.html))
Edit: Just to get it back on topic: Do you pay your bank every time you make a payment?

No, I do not pay the plumber every time I use the toilet
because that was never our agreement.  I paid him to
fix it once, and he did. 

What in the world does that have to do with someone
creating a digital publication and selling it to many people?

They are 2 different things.  One is selling a service,
the other is selling a digital item.

In both cases, however, there is an agreement between
buyer and seller, and no one is forcing anyone to
do anything.

The plumber won't fix the toilet unless I agree to pay
him his $75.  And I won't pay him his $75 unless he
fixes the toilet.

If I publish, say, an ebook, the offer is that you can
buy a copy of it for $20 knowing full well other people
are doing the same.  If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Again, no one is forcing anyone to do anything...

That's how the free market works.

If you don't believe in the free market,
then that's your right.

But if you decide to download my ebook off some torrent
site even though I didn't give you permission, I would
consider it stealing... I would consider it defrauding
me because you can just as well pay the $20 like
everyone else is doing, and if you don't like the price
I set for it, please don't read it.

Jonald.

Shall we (me and you) charge a copyright fee for this discussion, so that other viewers must continue to pay us to read it 20 years from now?

Have you ever read a newspaper that you didn't buy or listened to music you didn't buy - did you turn yourself in for doing so?

As I said initially, where does it all end?

I agree there are real world parameters and limitations,
appropriateness, and reasonableness that can be considered.

There is for example, the "fair use doctrine" which
is part of copyright law.

Context is the key, as always.

(But I still believe in the basic principles that I profess.)

I returned two $200 laser printers to the store after they tried to impose conditions after sale.

The first was a Lexmark. They had printed a "patent license (http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=39046#p2458850)" on the box claiming that I did not own the print-cartridge and had to return it to the manufacturer after a single use.

The second was a relatively entry-level HP multifunction printer. It is was "dumb" printer that does not work without proprietary drivers. The EULA said I was not allowed to install the software on more than one machine (https://answers.launchpad.net/hplip/+question/207306): for a network printer.

Stop and ask yourself why anybody would agree to such terms?

I also find your use of the word "digital" troubling. If it can be easily copied (per definition: that is the purpose of digitization), you want to be able to charge for every copy? I suppose copying VHS tapes and old audio cassettes are fine simply because the information is analog.

I think you see this issue completely in black and white. I understand that you would like to see all ideas be free and not owned by anyone but what you don't get is that true free markets can and should protect intellectual property as well as allow to the freedom to distribute ideas. It's a tough concept to grasp because it does contradict itself but what I am describing is neither moral or immoral. It is a completely gray area
Furthermore you are using hyperbole to prove your point with an unrealistic (and very literal) interpretation of copyright.

Atlas Shrugged describes a world in which the ideas owned by intellectuals and entrepreneurs are hijacked by the government in order to solve a global economic crisis. They acted on the idea that these ideas and properties should be available for everyone. So what happens in the book? The smartest and most talented people in the world leave because they have no reason to produce anything for a world that would rather take than receive.

That is nonsense. I actually feel dumber for reading that.

If you want to know where it ends, I have the answer. It lies with the creator of the product. If they choose to require payment for the work they have done then that is their choice. Under your logic, if they only were paid once for their contributions then they would ultimately stop producing anything substantial in the future. Capitalism drives progress whether you like it or not, but it can also drive greed as well. It is up to the property owner to decide if they want to distribute their ideas for free or require payment. In conclusion, it is simply their right to ask for payment.


I suggest (and this is purely a suggestion) that you become more acquainted with the ideas and principles behind free markets because at this point you fundamentally disagree with the very essence of Bitcoin itself.

One more thing. Before you go on and say Bitcoin proves your point, I'm going to tell you that you are wrong. Satoshi choose to make Bitcoin open source and let his idea free. If he had chosen to patent Bitcoin and keep it closed source then we would not be having this conversation right now, but Satoshi would likely be an extremely wealthy man after selling his patent to a bank. Again, it was his choice. You don't have the right to take it from him; he has the right to give it away and that is why you are wrong.

BTC is the first true global economy tool as it has no allegiance to any government therefore no one government or body can force BTC (or its users) to do anything...

Well its so hard because there is no middle man for Bitcoin exchanging. Dark Wallet is another reason why Bitcoin is hard to regulate.

Arnoald is an idiot. Without art and all the great artists we have had, our world would be much different today. Everything in life plays a role, every job in society plays a role and if it were taken out, society would crumble.

*taken out, not replaced btw.

This is a false dichotomy. Artists can profit well from merchandise, asking for voluntary payments like NIN and Radio head successfully accomplished(earning more than with a record label), creating custom productions for movies/advertisements, and touring.


Yes, when I script a site or develop code for a company they own the material and I cannot continue to rent seek. My time to create their custom solution is well compensated as a sunk initial cost. 



There have been some great games crowd funded that have been wildly successful.  Companies can also choose to monetize off of merchandising, in game purchases, and advertising as many already do.

Creative work will continue to be produced with or without Copyright regulations.

Studies have shown that file sharers who copy music actually purchase 30 % more music than ones who don't routinely break copyright law. (this doesn't even include all of the extra money they spend on merchandise and concerts either)

http://piracy.americanassembly.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AA-Research-Note-Infringement-and-Enforcement-November-2011.pdf


When Radiohead and NIN released their open- source and free albums I was happy to donate to them as compensation and many others did as well. This model was more profitable than releasing their album with a record label.

What should be considered reasonable is people should be free to peacefully make contract and trade with one another without institutionalized violence and coercion.

Music, art, writing , and code are all forms of speech. Most of which is not unique and borrowed from others and the environment.

I have no problem with 2 people or a group agreeing upon a contract where they respect each others intellectual property voluntarily. Custom code and work I create for clients I don't re-use out of respect for them and future goodwill by default because they paid me for such a creation.

What is unethical is for a fascistic monopoly using violence to impose those same restrictions upon these ideas and forms of speech against the population as a whole without their consent.

Not only is it unethical but impractical and futile. Whether it is Bitcoin, Speech, or digital forms of art, Pandora's box has been opened and the nature of reality and technology make regulating such entities impossible. Even strong copyright advocates usually have "copyright-infringed"(Not using theft or piracy as those are inaccurate and misleading terms) movies, software, and music in their possession.

 

There is much less good music being created these days because there is less incentive and opportunity
to be a professional musician.

And SaaS is becoming much prevelant versus commercial software you can own.

So those are some of the consequences of digitization of information.

it isn't hard at all.

Agreed, on SaaS; that is fine and fair.

I still enjoy plenty of talented local musicians who don't need a record label or to make a few pennies per album sold. I don't think that copyright has necessarily brought better art into existence and one could even make a case that such regulation stifles creativity and innovation.

I'll give you one quick example of how copyright stifles innovation - Mash-up artist girltalk is limited to using very small samples for fear of lawsuits which in my opinion makes the tracks have a somewhat schizophrenic composition.

your rules so lets play with them.

i want you to design me a chip and give me the first chip as a sample.

..... <delivery received>

great now i can reverse-engineer the chip and make as many copies as i like.. because you said copies should be free.

thank you

IP  laws are crucial.   Its not just songs,  books,  software and movies.

Trademarks also fall under this category.   Seeing all the fake pirated stuff coming out of China.   People have died because unknowingly using fake car parts

copyright doesnt stifle innovation.. it just means you have to not be lazy/greedy. and to atleast ask the original owner for permission to copy their property, and to agree on a percentage profit share of the new creation/copy.

basically if you cant create something fresh and new, and you need to use someone elses talent, they deserve a slice of the pie too

That is the nastiest, most ignorant thing anyone has said to me on these forums yet. Congrats.

My access to food and shelter - indeed my very survival - depends upon access to money, just like anyone else. I despise capitalism - it disgusts me because it requires violence, but I've been engaging with it my entire life because abandoning all my loved ones is not a real option at all.

You are basically saying that because I dislike capitalism, I don't deserve to live in a world dominated by capitalism (and the violence it entails).

So, should I just kill myself then? Leave it all behind? Don't think I haven't thought about it. One does not come to be possessed by such overwhelming misanthropy without considering all possible "exit strategies" from the system which causes one to suffer.

Open source doctrine works great for the digital age but it does not apply to everything in life. It would not be a sustainable or practical system if every idea or product were not subjected to IP rights.
We see plenty of examples for why open ideas are good but that does not mean it works everywhere. This is a mind set that works particularly well with the digital age.

IP laws protect the rights of the creator from having their ideas copied and sold without compensation. But as I said previously, it ultimately comes down to the IP originator to determine whether they want to require payment or not.


Just because you wrote some code for a company that you work for does not mean you are entitled to the profits of every copy of that software. You assume a consistent paycheck and wage when you sign a contract. Unless that contract gives you rights to a profit sharing program then you don't have the ability nor the moral authority to reap the profits of the software you developed for your employer. It is common sense really and I'm surprised some people can't figure this out.

However if you are on your own and you develop software independently as Satoshi did then it is your choice to do what you want with it.

Firstly, the ends don't justify the means(Violating the NAP).

Secondly, those copyright protection rackets often are hypocrites and take from others and the public domain freely while suing those that try and do the same.

Thirdly, it is stiffing for a company or person to have a monopoly on an idea because they payed off the state to give them a short 20 year monopoly, no35, no I they meant 42 , no 55?, oh wait it should be 75, hmmm... lets use 120years for corporations now.... basically, whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public Domain they will have lobbyists pay off the right politicians to insure their monopoly on the "idea of a cartoon mouse".

Lastly, Ideas and thoughts aren't as unique as patents and copyrights make them out to seem. Just because you thought your jingle with the words "Ohhhhh, baby I love the way you dance..." is unique, shouldn't give you the right to force others to recognize that you own that idea. There are only so many note and keyword combinations that intrinsically make sense and sound good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

You cleary don't understand how IP laws work

Patents protect individual inventors so large corporations don't steal their ideas.

Mickey Mouse is a trademark not "idea of a cartoon mouse".  Trademarks don't enter public domain

Disney owns many trademarks, patents and copyrights.

Patents now can be owned by legal fictions, llc, and corporations as assets with an assignee.

Mickey mouse is not just a trademark but protected under copyright law as well. (movies, songs, books, games)
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 is AKA  Mickey Mouse Protection Act specifically for this reason as Disney was one of the main reasons for the continued extension of copyright law.

Trademarks, copyrights, patents are all "ideas" in one form or another.

Melancholy Elephants (http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html) predicts that production will go down in the face of perpetual copyright terms: even with half the population working in the creative arts.

Disney extended copyright on the Mickey Mouse movies.   The Mickey Mouse trademark is indefinite.   

Its not a monopoly on "idea of a cartoon mouse".  I don't have time to explain the difference to you.

I own 2 trademarks and I make money licensing them so I know about trademarks.

You are the one that brought up trademarks. Personally, I don't have that big of a problem with trademarks as they serve a purpose in representing an idea that identifies a product or service which is useful for branding in business. (I am still not suggesting that non-consenting individuals should be harmed(outside of social stigmatization) if they don't agree to recognize trademarks however)

How about actually disputing my comments directly instead of straw manning my position?

What strawmanning?   I'm disputing what you wrote about "idea of a cartoon mouse"

"Mickey Mouse" is a specific trademark.   Like "Iron Man", "Hello Kitty", etc..

You cannot patent,  copyright,  or trademark "an idea of a cartoon mouse".

It should be common sense as I can think of many cartoon mice in existence not owned by Disney

Im not even trying to argue w you unless you think there should be no intellectual property laws

I see whats going on here... you are just reading into my comment to interpret "an idea of a cartoon mouse"
as "all versions of ideas of cartoon mouses" instead of one version of an idea of a cartoon mouse that if you come close to it you will get sued by team of lawyers. I apologize about the confusion and will try and elaborate in more detail. One range of versions of ideas of a cartoon mouse as detailed in a book , song, game, ect would be what I was referring to. You are using a very narrow definition of idea and I am using a broader definition of that term.

Yes, I am specifically claiming that it is unethical for an individual or legal fiction to bribe a state for exclusive monopoly to an idea whether it is represented as a copyright, patent , or trademark.

I am perfectly fine with people or groups getting together and voluntarily drawing up contracts that say they will respect each others IP but forced IP laws that are regulated with kidnapping and torture is unethical.

Either of our opinions don't matter much outside of a philosophical discussion as mathematics, distributed computing,  and human behavior will insure that copyright law which is enforced by the monopolistic violence of the state is futile and a losing battle regardless.

 

You don't have to bribe the state.   Its just a filing fee.   Anyone can afford to file a patent,  trademark or copyright.

I know for certain in USA trademarks are on first use basis.   You just have to prove you used it first. Its different for other countries though.   For patents its a little more complex since there are a lot of similar inventions.

In any case 1 to 1 contract makes no sense.   Intellectual property only works if it covers the entire market.  

We disagree probably because you prob don't have to deal w these issues in your business.    If you had a good idea that you put a lot of investment to make it fruitful,  you'd want protection from copycats.   Its not just the idea though - its everything but only some things can be property.

Mickey Mouse is not just a cartoon mouse.   It has a long history w a lot of marketing and business behind it to make the image ubiquitous and part of our cultural language.  Thats why it has value and why people license the trademark to sell products.   Thats why its more valuable than Jerry Mouse or Speedy Gonzales

Obviously information age its easy to torrent movies and download MP3. Doesn't mean copyright laws are futile.   If anything the business models might adapt to the market.   

I still don't see why you think people who follow the rules are unethical.   Its the freeloaders who are unethical

yeah right. we can not predict what will happen to bitcoin in the future, maybe he would be very valuable or even no value at all and then disappeared. who knows

You keep insinuating that I have no experience with copyright/trademark law or business which is untrue.

Microcosms that are voluntary can exist and have some use. Example 1- This forum is a microcosm where your username is issued as a forum "IP trademark" and no one is forcing anyone to participate. Example 2 - Youtube may choose to make agreements to respect NBC and ABC IP and vice versa. Again, its their servers and their company and no one is forcing you to use it.

I agree with you there are many benefits for a business who wants to compete by stifling innovation and driving out competitors. When you pay for filing fees, expediting fees, and legal fees these are all bribes to the state for temporary or perpetual monopolies within a certain geographic region.

Disney ripped off many of the Brothers Grimm's Fairy tales and other artistic works  to originally build their empire than hypocritically proceeded to continually lobby to extend copyright law and sue anyone that comes close to publishing similar material.

Your 2 trademarks you license didn't come to you out of thin air. You didn't create them because you received some direct revelation from a supernatural creature. You drew on different ideas and art created by others. You don't really own the ideas behind them any more than society and history do as well.

I believe in self ownership and private property and I can make a strong case for why simply recognizing you own the effects of yourself you also own the product of your labor, but not when it comes to speech. Ideas and Speech(code, art, writing, music) should not be abridged to create monopolies even if the creators of the US constitution suggested(20 years , and later to be extended for copyright). There are many societal and creative abuses that are well documented by restricting free speech at gunpoint.

There are many of us who don't recognize or respect the arbitrators who enforce exiting IP regulations and for good reasons. There is a very long and corrupt history and you can start to explorer it with some of the links that you are getting exposed to.  

The "rules" you speak about should not be followed because they are corrupt within their very core as they assume you agree to them at birth, they are as impractical to enforce as the war on drugs, and they are arbitrary and capriciously enforced to benefit the rich(Copyleft is routinely infringed and players with more lawyers usually win)

[1] who exactly do you regulate?

[2] if you try an make bad regulation, bitcoin allow capital flight to more bitcoin friendly jurisdictions, so bad regulation gets economically punished.

when btc gets to a 100 Billion ~ 1T cap, somewhere in there it will become irritable to gov to be come pro BTC as they will be able to attract 100's of billions in investment etc.

Also remember BTC is not like micros ft that say has 100 Billion in cash, once Microsoft spends that cash, its gone, it has to earn more. BTC is 100 Billion/Market cap buying power always.

What you write sounds like you don't understand.  Forgive me for making that assumption.

Youtube doesnt own NBC content.   Nbc's content is protected.   If NBC doesn't want youtube to broadcast they can use the law.   They can also have an agreement as well if thats what they choose.   Without the ip laws youtube can do whatever. The laws protect content owner but doesn't prohibit private contracts

Grimm is public domain.   Disney or even you can make your version of Snow White without persmission from Grimm

Doesn't matter where trademarks come from or how I got inspired.   The reason it's property is because I made it valuable.   I put in the investment and time.   It doesn't matter where FUBU came from,   the founder made the brand well known.   So the trademark is his property.   If someone wants to use it he can grant license.. Or not.   Its his choice cuz its his property.   Even one of my trademark was designed by a hire.   Its still my property since I paid her to do the work

So a drivers license is also bribing the state to let you drive?   Where do you get  fees=bribing?   Thats a bit of a stretch.   Live in Vietnam or China and bribing will be more obvious to you

You think people can own physical property but not intellectual property?  Contradiction here

I can't even respond to your post cause I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.   You seriously believe what you write?   Its so far out there

Hard to argue this point. Most open source games are pure crap. Even open source technologies such as the id Tech 3D engine started off as closed source.

Agree.

It's like, if I put something on a website , and say: "you can use this, if you agree to pay $1,
if you don't agree, please leave, those are my terms."...and then someone comes along
and says "screw the terms, i'm taking it, and im not paying you, fuck you".

Even if they are not thinking that literally, that is the implications of their
beliefs and actions...because they lack an honest philosophical base,
or morals, or both.

The reason we have art is not (entirley) related to money, markets or IP.
Artists would continue to create for free. They have no choice in the matter. Ask any artist and they will explain.

Art is sometimes about money, but then it's often shitty art
Art is for personal pleasure, as creation or as a collectible, as is money.
It's just another form of money.

And bitcoin is a protocol, regulation is in the code! People can try to regulate it but it wouldn't change a thing, like gold, its use is sometimes regulated but not gold itself.

I think the available wallet options make regulation impossible. Proxy payment services are available too to make detection difficult. But a country's bitcoin regulation may prevent new users from entering the crypto world.

You appear to know what you are talking about, but I disagree on this point.

It is good that you are making a distinction between Patents, Trademarks and Copyright, but inBitweTrust appears to have missed that.

Copyright law is censorship. It currently gives the author exclusive control over their "creative expression of ideas" long past their death. There are necessarily exceptions like fair dealing (fair use in the US). Without such exemptions, copyright law would violate human rights.

Patents give a person or entity exclusive control over a novel invention for a period of about 20 years. It is stronger than copyright in that they are able to prohibit competitors from using that invention during that time-period. With the current trend towards "patent thickets", patents no longer protect the small inventor. It is not clear how many new patents meet the standard of "non-obvious to somebody skilled in the art". I am temped to say we should scrap the whole system.

Trademarks, as you mention, never expire unless they fall into common usage as a generic term (they probably expire if neglected as well). Despite their indefinite life-time; I have no problems with trademarks (other than occasional abuse). They are not "property" though. They are a way to identify a product or company in the market-place. Trademarks are essentially an anti-plagiarism rule for goods and services.

it is interesting video about the legal aspects of bitcoin regulation from TEDx Talks: "The concepts of Bitcoin and their impact on the worldwide legal space." Today bitcoin needs some tech knowledge, but it is only question of front end interfacing and ecosystem. So, it is only matter of time. Like a photography - "wet" darkroom skills and expensive optics were limitations which are already forgotten in the age of digital photography. Of course, it took some time (about 200 years since the first daguerrotype) :)

I guess the Pull request was mostly closed because it was based on an old version of bitcoind and was not in a working condition at the moment of the request.

You keep talking past me by explaining to me how IP laws apply in society under current laws. Yes, I am aware of all the above. Grimm was in the public domain but my point was that so should a lot of Disney copyright. Disney keeps moving the goalposts to keep their copyright from entering the public domain. This is corrupt and unethical. Additionally, there exists recourse in societies without laws regulated at gunpoint.  


Yes, paying for a drivers license is an extortion measure to collect a bribe and gather information by the state. I have traveled in many countries where direct bribing is more common. In the US theft and bribing is merely more institutionalized than in other countries.


Physical property and Intellectual property are very different categories altogether. Treating IP as property is a very recent notion in society and wasn't started being used until the 19th century and commonplace till the 20th century .

Physical property is tangible and physically exists. Intellectual Property is virtual and isn't stolen but copied. You cannot assume that those doing the copying would have made a purchase had they not copied the idea. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies while digital fall into a third category because they are scarce and limited. Stealing the private key isn't copying because its a unique digital resource that deprives the owner of their money.

I am not trolling you but these concepts may seem very foreign to you because most in society aren't exposed to anarcho-capatalism or any anti-copyright arguments.

Pretty easy to argue here I think. Call of Duty is an online game requiring actiation with a key that can only be used once. You don't pay for the game, you basically pay for the key and it's a consumable. By creating more keys that allow the key owners to play online, copying them doesn't matter anymore. Same for other online games.
That shows companies are already adapting to the copyright problem, and how do they do it? By selling a unique consumable every single sale - and it works.

Yes, I am aware of the legal distinctions and historical purposes of all the different forms of IP law. What I am discussing are reasons why those laws are unethical and inconsistent.

There is a very detailed rebuttal of IP laws and rights here for more information:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Here is a quick synopsis -

1) Patent and copyright unfairly allow the theft of real and tangible assets owned by others to those with a the patents /copyrights because they are given a monopoly by the state on every physical representation of that idea.

2) Ideas are not scarce and property rights must be clear , consistent and applied to scarce resources.

3) Copyright results in a weaker incentive at creativity

4) IP laws are moot and obsolete because they cannot effectively deal with decentralization and cryptography.

5) IP laws stifle freedom of speech and fair use isn't wide enough to allow for needed liberties

6)  The "author" of IP is under dispute as uniqueness and originality of ideas that are commonplace are often questionable.

 

Does that include obscure ones like plant breeder's rights and the EU database directive?
Edit: I am having fun wrapping my head around "moral rights", of which the statute of Anne appears to be a simplification.

I bring it up because I am influenced by Richard M Stallman's Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html)

In that essay, he argues that you should not talk about "Intellectual Property" like it is one large neat category. Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, and even the more obscure ones all have different purposes.

The main benefit of the term appears to be to convince people that this "virtual property" deserves strong legal protection. Since the 1996 WIPO "Copyright" and "Performances and Phongrams" treaties, copyright has started to trump physical property rights. General-purpose computers are no longer a commodity you can easily buy in the store: the ones you find all implement multiple forms of DRM. Gone are the days when your computer comes with a circuit diagram.

Your forgetting the part about having to work a separate 40 hour a week job
and what that does to ones time , energy, and output.

The technology will remain and will go on. It is apeared already an email and a twitter clones, based on bitcoin technology.

Page 6 refers to Sui generis used in the EU database directive of that citation.

I am also influenced by Richard Stallman, but he is definitely not arguing for any anarchist political position.
Both you and Stallman make great points that each right and law is a subject in its own category and there are many details one should consider. The reason I can make such broad sweeping attacks across all these IP regulations is I am arguing from an anarchist perspective. Foundationally, these regulations are unethical with the means at which they are enforced.

I'll Elaborate:
Currently, Trademark, copyright, and patents are all enforced through legal systems and treaties which ultimately result in you being kidnapped and tortured if you don't comply. Regulating a society by violating the non-aggression principle is fundamentally unethical and we as a people should think of more creative ways to address concerns that IP laws speak to solving.

Bitcoin is a fantastic first step created by crypto-anarchists where contracts and money can be peacefully used without breaking the non-aggression principle as the cryptography and protocol itself regulate the ecosystem rather than threats behind the violence of the state.

Lets take one example of how IP can be protected peacefully: trademarks. Namecoin and nameId could be used in the ecosystem to digitally watermark brand logos so when a customer scans the product a query request can made to a database to authenticate that the product is genuine. Knockoffs with similar logos and trademarks can exist but any retailer that sells such knockoff can quickly be identified by the general public and socially ostracized due to introducing consumer confusion which will lead to a decrease in sales for the retailer due to fewer customers.  

...and yet artists still find time to create and monetize what inspires them.

Possible non-monetary motivations.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

I am not suggesting money doesn't motivate art and profit isn't a catalyst. I merely contend that those who suggest the lack of IP laws enforced by states will lead a "creative vacuum" are grossly exaggerating the consequences.