Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 12:22:52 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Ayn Rand quote  (Read 6609 times)
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 12:51:36 PM
 #81

And yet I also notice that some of his opponents, upon becoming frustrated with his worldview, tend to resort to calling him immature, ridiculous, "ideological," etc. etc.


No no, you see, he isn't here to discuss anything, and that's what frustrates people.  He's here to make totally baseless statements.  In order to discuss, arguments must be constructed.  He doesn't do that.  He makes bold, almost always laughably ridiculous assertions with no so much as a simple logic argument backing them up, and then when someone challenges him he starts spewing more baseless rhetoric, strawmen, and personal attacks.  He's not there to DISCUSS anything.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
1481242972
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242972

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242972
Reply with quote  #2

1481242972
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481242972
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242972

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242972
Reply with quote  #2

1481242972
Report to moderator
1481242972
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242972

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242972
Reply with quote  #2

1481242972
Report to moderator
Shinobi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 11:03:32 PM
 #82

We think copyright is completely unnecessary and highly detrimental to our existence.

...though the computer you type on right now is itself a product only made possible by the incentives posed by legal protection you deem "completely" unnecessary. This is akin to the animal rights activist who takes antibiotics, and an infantile notion. While a good discussion can be had on whether copyright law in its present state is unduly overreaching, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not even intellectually honest.


_______
Thinking of using a cheap, yet reliable VPN? Go with PrivateInternetAccess. Not a referral link. Just a satisfied customer!
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 12:34:13 AM
 #83

...though the computer you type on right now is itself a product only made possible by the incentives posed by legal protection you deem "completely" unnecessary. This is akin to the animal rights activist who takes antibiotics, and an infantile notion. While a good discussion can be had on whether copyright law in its present state is unduly overreaching, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not even intellectually honest.

It is indeed completely unnecessary, as my magazine proved time and time again by publishing content under the public domain.

What kind of evidence you got to prove when everyone always use legal protection for their works? Bitcoin Weekly buckles that trend completely. So far we do not have any devastating economic consequence as a result our policy on copyright.

Bitcoin Weekly was inspired in part by Jason Rohrer, who is a famous indie game developer who published his games under the pubic domain. He made a nice living off his games. In addition, I am informed by two economists who made devastating arguments against the notion of copyright and patents, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, who wrote the book Against Intellectual Monopoly.

In any case, the fight for the future of copyright and patents will not be in the courtroom, or the court of public opinion, or in congress, but in the marketplace where the consumers call the shot.

Our wallet speaks louder than any arguments ever made for or against copyright. I have good reasons to believe that copyright is unnecessary to Bitcoin Weekly.

Dhomochevsky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 240



View Profile
July 15, 2011, 03:37:41 AM
 #84

I think you are right to say that copyright is unnecessary a): to Bitcoin Weekly and b): from some points of view, but the fact that Bitcoin Weekly is released in the public domain doesn't prove copyright unnecessary for everyone, nor does it buckle any trend in copyright law. What works for you won't work for somebody else, at least not the same way. Copyright protection is necessary in some cases - imagine a novelist writing a book only to have it used by a studio to make a movie without him receiving any credit at all. The novelist copyrighting his book would form some deterrent against this - yes, it can be bypassed with a good enoguh lawyer but still, it's a line of defense against somebody stealing your ideas and profiting off them. Imagine somebody creating an invention or some other sort of product of their work/ideas, only to have it claimed by somebody else as their own creation. For example, I could take Bitcoin Weekly articles, edit out the authors, change their names with whatever I see fit and pass them around as my own. I could sell publicity in them. Yes, people in this community will probably catch on to this and shun the fake publication, but I could distribute them to people that have no idea who the original authors are, nor what the Bitcoin community is. Granted, it probably won't mean that much to you, since the gist of it is to spread information by whatever means, but what if I choose to modify slightly the texts/contexts so they reflect another position than the one you intend? Even if you don't care, it's naive to think that somebody in the same situation would act the same way.

And about voting with our wallets - if the modern advertising/marketing industry is teaching us anything is that one should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity and the impact misinformation has on the general opinion.

TL;DR: Just because something works for you it doesn't mean it will work for everyone, and it proves precisely dick.
Anonymous
Guest

July 15, 2011, 06:15:08 AM
 #85

However, copyright proves to limit what people can do with their own property and energy. For example, if an entity is granted a monopoly on creating a widget then I am barred from creating said widget with my own matter and energy. It does not matter if Entity A desires protection, my property rights should supercede it since its by it that I and other men can sustain. True property is life. It can be denied from us and it can deny us life while denying somebody exclusivity to an idea does not. It's even worse if I already have a widget made. Entity A essentially now has the irrational right to cease it from me despite it being entirely and rightfully generated by my own labor and person.

The idea of its form is intangible and not scarce. The idea is only a remix of other knowledge generated by man going all the way down to the techniques of feeding and watering oneself. To hold this sacred and to be exclusive to only those deemed virtuous by a supposed authority is inane.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
 #86

Atlas, I think I can make some sense of what you are trying to say, but so what? That's the way it is. What are you doing about it besides complaining on a message board about bitcoins?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Dhomochevsky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 240



View Profile
July 15, 2011, 12:30:01 PM
 #87

However, copyright proves to limit what people can do with their own property and energy. For example, if an entity is granted a monopoly on creating a widget then I am barred from creating said widget with my own matter and energy. It does not matter if Entity A desires protection, my property rights should supercede it since its by it that I and other men can sustain.

ITT: We fail at understanding how copyright works.

If someone creates a widget nothing bars you from coding an identical widget from scratch for your personal use. Hell, you can even copyright it under your name and release it to the public under any license you see fit - as long as you can prove YOU wrote the widget from scratch and didn't use any of the code from the original creators. A real life example of this is UNIX and GNU. Of course, this takes you into a legally grey area, one could argue for example that the original author is entitled to his intellectual idea of the widget, but then again I don't need to argue about this with you, you seem to know a lot about self-entitlement.


True property is life.

Only an idiot would take a thing he/she has very little control of and received by accident as property. Especially "true property". Whine as much as you like, you are not the sole proprietor of your life. You depend on other people for it and others depend on you for theirs. Go ahead, amuse me, tell me different.


It's even worse if I already have a widget made. Entity A essentially now has the irrational right to cease it from me despite it being entirely and rightfully generated by my own labor and person.

What you're describing is copyright abuse (provided you created and published your widget beforehand but didn't register any type of copyright). This can be solved in court if you prove beyond any doubt that you are the one that originally created it and the ones that copyrighted it did so abusively. If you can't do that... tough luck dude. It's not the copyright that screwed you, it was your inability to protect your property. Copyright abuse is a totally different problem and yes, there is an entire industry of mooching other people's work using copyright - I, personally, ran into some ridiculous examples - but this is due to human failure to properly enforce the basic idea behind copyright: the need to protect your private property. Blaming copyright for this is like blaming the altimeter for a plane crash due to pilot error.

The idea of its form is intangible and not scarce.

Key term here being "form". Form is the most unimportant aspect of an item you intend to use for its properties. But we weren't arguing over form all this time.


The idea is only a remix of other knowledge generated by man going all the way down to the techniques of feeding and watering oneself. To hold this sacred and to be exclusive to only those deemed virtuous by a supposed authority is inane.

You're using a strawman argument here. You're comparing your entitlement to other people's ideas with a basic human need. I'm sure you can do better than that.


Copyright is not a tool for corporations to steal an idea or deny people acces to an idea's value. It's merely a way to protect your intellectual work from profiteers. And, as any tool, it can be abused. It doesn't make it evil or useless. If, however, you want to argue access to ideas - that's a wholly different matter and it concernes distribution licensing. You can have copyrighted work distributed for free, under CC or GPL for example.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 12:35:10 PM
 #88

TL;DR: Just because something works for you it doesn't mean it will work for everyone, and it proves precisely dick.

Reality is the final arbiter.

People said any number of things that our business model couldn't work. It's also common to say that business is an exception, an anomaly. It only works for certain type of business, and so on.

Of course, none of these people don't have the ball to experiment with their business model. They rely on horror and worst case scenario instead of empirical reality.

That's a fine way to think about it, except for making money.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
 #89

However, copyright proves to limit what people can do with their own property and energy. For example, if an entity is granted a monopoly on creating a widget then I am barred from creating said widget with my own matter and energy. It does not matter if Entity A desires protection, my property rights should supercede it since its by it that I and other men can sustain. True property is life. It can be denied from us and it can deny us life while denying somebody exclusivity to an idea does not. It's even worse if I already have a widget made. Entity A essentially now has the irrational right to cease it from me despite it being entirely and rightfully generated by my own labor and person.

The idea of its form is intangible and not scarce. The idea is only a remix of other knowledge generated by man going all the way down to the techniques of feeding and watering oneself. To hold this sacred and to be exclusive to only those deemed virtuous by a supposed authority is inane.

Atlas, it's time to shut up and get busy with our business life instead of arguing and bickering and moralizing why is it wrong or right to have intellectual property.

Our success(or failure) in business will be far more sweet(or bitter) than the pointless debate we are seeing here today.

I am dropping out of this thread, now.

Dhomochevsky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 240



View Profile
July 15, 2011, 12:43:47 PM
 #90

Again, you're assuming too much. If somebody isn't that interested in YOUR business model yes, it might mean they don't have the balls to use it. However, it most likely means they don't give a flying fuck and they have other things to do.

As you said, reality is the final arbiter. If it works for you, hey man, congrats. But don't push your personal belief and experience as the absolute truth, because everything depends on circumstances. And reality can have a shitload of different circumstances for different people and different places when you try to apply a certain model.

Oh, and the fact that BW works as a business sure as hell ain't a reason to abolish copyright.
Anonymous
Guest

July 15, 2011, 04:12:19 PM
 #91

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

I firmly believe there is no such thing as an original creation debunking the need for monopolies on ideas since they cannot be truly owned. The video above has excellent examples that prove my argument. Watch and accept at your leisure.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 08:58:52 PM
 #92

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

I firmly believe there is no such thing as an original creation debunking the need for monopolies on ideas since they cannot be truly owned. The video above has excellent examples that prove my argument. Watch and accept at your leisure.

I know I've seen the phrase "I firmly believe" before, therefor you must be plagiarizing previous work. Yes, I do see what you mean. That video is nonsense and borders on slander.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

July 15, 2011, 09:02:01 PM
 #93

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

I firmly believe there is no such thing as an original creation debunking the need for monopolies on ideas since they cannot be truly owned. The video above has excellent examples that prove my argument. Watch and accept at your leisure.

I know I've seen the phrase "I firmly believe" before, therefor you must be plagiarizing previous work. Yes, I do see what you mean. That video is nonsense and borders on slander.
Elaborate at your will.
Anonymous
Guest

July 15, 2011, 09:03:28 PM
 #94

You depend on other people...

I've never enslaved a man in my life.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 10:05:54 PM
 #95

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

I firmly believe there is no such thing as an original creation debunking the need for monopolies on ideas since they cannot be truly owned. The video above has excellent examples that prove my argument. Watch and accept at your leisure.

I know I've seen the phrase "I firmly believe" before, therefor you must be plagiarizing previous work. Yes, I do see what you mean. That video is nonsense and borders on slander.
Elaborate at your will.
Which part do you not understand?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

July 15, 2011, 10:07:37 PM
 #96

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

I firmly believe there is no such thing as an original creation debunking the need for monopolies on ideas since they cannot be truly owned. The video above has excellent examples that prove my argument. Watch and accept at your leisure.

I know I've seen the phrase "I firmly believe" before, therefor you must be plagiarizing previous work. Yes, I do see what you mean. That video is nonsense and borders on slander.
Elaborate at your will.
Which part do you not understand?
The last line.
Synaptic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 10:13:03 PM
 #97

You depend on other people...

I've never enslaved a man in my life.

lol...

This kid....this kind offers such wonderful entertainment value.

I have to share this with other people I know just so in comical circumstances I can act all serious and try to say with a straight face:

"I have never enslaved a man in my life."


LOL....
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 10:17:19 PM
 #98

The claim that Led Zepplin intentionally copied other artists and implying that such an act was instrumental (pun intended) to their success. Musical styles come and go like every other fashion such as hair, clothes, and paradigms. Borrowing styles to fit into the culture is not only acceptable, it is expected.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Anonymous
Guest

July 15, 2011, 10:20:23 PM
 #99

Borrowing styles to fit into the culture is not only acceptable, it is expected.
That's the whole point and its not exclusive to the arts.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 16, 2011, 12:19:05 AM
 #100

Borrowing styles to fit into the culture is not only acceptable, it is expected.
That's the whole point and its not exclusive to the arts.
This argument sounds like Ecclesiastes 1:9
It is no more true today that it was for the ancient goat herders, or we would all still be goat herders. There is novelty yet to be discovered in the universe.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!