Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 08:21:45 PM *
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 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Read this before having an opinion on economics  (Read 23846 times)
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
May 16, 2011, 11:40:24 AM
 #241

Google on DCA a bit more. Read the Cancer.org articles.
Etc.
Then tell me it's a full-fledged cure for cancer again.

If anyone truly believes that if anyone _ACTUALLY_ found a large scale functional cancer cure without the world going into a huge uproar about it they have more tinfoil on than me. And I sparkle like a satellite.

That's what I get for reading blogs... of 4 years old research.
It does seem that the research is "interesting" though. But not interesting enough to put serious research money into. Just tax money.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
1480710105
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710105

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710105
Reply with quote  #2

1480710105
Report to moderator
1480710105
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710105

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710105
Reply with quote  #2

1480710105
Report to moderator
1480710105
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710105

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710105
Reply with quote  #2

1480710105
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2011, 07:27:13 AM
 #242


I've not read the full thread, but I think the argument against "intellectual property" is pretty simple.
Why private property exist at all?
Because it is the simplest set of rules to avoid conflicts while deciding the use of scarce resources.

1) Ideas are not scarce, two different person can use the same idea at the same time.
2) The set of rules needed to define "intellectual property" is not simple at all.  "Intellectual property" rises more conflicts than it solves.

It is simpler to allow, for example, copying than to just define it unequivocally. If a read a book and talk about it, is it copying? What if I take a picture of some pages? How many words can I copy without "stealing"? What inventions are patentable and what are not (obviously, the wheel is not patentable, but for other things this is not so obvious)? How a state is supposed to enforce all this? How a member of one state protects its "Intellectual property" from people living in other countries? Do we want a global state?

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
May 24, 2011, 11:01:16 PM
 #243


I've not read the full thread, but I think the argument against "intellectual property" is pretty simple.
Why private property exist at all?
Because it is the simplest set of rules to avoid conflicts while deciding the use of scarce resources.

1) Ideas are not scarce, two different person can use the same idea at the same time.
2) The set of rules needed to define "intellectual property" is not simple at all.  "Intellectual property" rises more conflicts than it solves.

It is simpler to allow, for example, copying than to just define it unequivocally. If a read a book and talk about it, is it copying? What if I take a picture of some pages? How many words can I copy without "stealing"? What inventions are patentable and what are not (obviously, the wheel is not patentable, but for other things this is not so obvious)? How a state is supposed to enforce all this? How a member of one state protects its "Intellectual property" from people living in other countries? Do we want a global state?

1) Yes, people keep telling me that. But someone has to actually have the idea first. It's not as easy as you think.
2) No rules that deals with reality is simple. Property laws are equally complex. Doesn't stop people here from liking them.

There are already rules in place. They could be better and some things should never have been allowed to be patented, but for the most part it works.
How it's enforced? By laws, and fees for those who break the laws.
How to protect it from other countries? Unilateral trade agreements.
It's not that hard. Nor is it that easy. It's just the best we can do.

Why should I invest in Intellectual property when I can't protect my investment. If I invest in my house I am allowed to protect it.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
May 24, 2011, 11:13:38 PM
 #244

1) Yes, people keep telling me that. But someone has to actually have the idea first. It's not as easy as you think.

We're not using the term "scarce" in the same way as you. Economically, something that can be infinitely copied with little or no cost is not scarce. However, if you create laws which make copying a crime, or add some sort of "lock" (like DRM) then you can make certain ideas scarce in some sense.

Quote
2) No rules that deals with reality is simple. Property laws are equally complex. Doesn't stop people here from liking them.

There are two ways to legitimately claim property. If it's unowned you can homestead it, which is just whatever method society accepts as a market of proving "I claimed this first". If it's owned, you can exchange for it, but the exchange must be voluntary on both sides.

That's property law in a nutshell. I challenge you to do the same for intellectual property.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778



View Profile WWW
May 25, 2011, 05:08:44 AM
 #245

Quote: "I challenge you to do the same for intellectual property."

Hmm, I seem to think along the lines of if you copylefted it or released it into the public domain then it is intellectual property, in that other inellectuals seem quite likely to credit you with having originated the idea.

Whereas if you try to turn it into some kind of "other people are not allowed to do things the sensible or correct or best or better or more effective or more convenient way because i already figured out what that way is" kind of crap that is not intellectual property it might even be anti-intellectual!

("I know your intellect tells you the sensible or even obvious way to do this is the best way humans have yet devised or discovered of doing it, but, so sorry, we are prepared to use violence to prevent you doing so...")

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 25, 2011, 05:37:22 AM
 #246

Why should I invest in Intellectual property when I can't protect my investment. If I invest in my house I am allowed to protect it.

If you're actually willing to read this (it's pretty long) you can learn something.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3401

Short summary:

a) Much of the "investment" you describe is useless anyway.  They are copycat products that don't do anything other than allow the copycat to reinvent something that already exists in a non-infringing form.  This is useless (wasteful) investment. 

b) In a realistic model you will be able to profit from your investment even without "protecting" it.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
May 25, 2011, 05:40:06 AM
 #247

Why should I invest in Intellectual property when I can't protect my investment. If I invest in my house I am allowed to protect it.

If you're actually willing to read this (it's pretty long) you can learn something.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3401

Short summary:

a) Much of the "investment" you describe is useless anyway.  They are copycat products that don't do anything other than allow the copycat to reinvent something that already exists in a non-infringing form.  This is useless (wasteful) investment. 

b) In a realistic model you will be able to profit from your investment even without "protecting" it.

http://bitcoinweekly.com is already doing that! Cheesy

I should throw in two other copyfree licenses for good measure.

jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2011, 11:26:06 AM
 #248

Quote from: JA37
1) Yes, people keep telling me that. But someone has to actually have the idea first. It's not as easy as you think.

Will people stop having ideas if its production is not regulated?

Quote from: JA37
2) No rules that deals with reality is simple. Property laws are equally complex. Doesn't stop people here from liking them.

I think property laws (in fact all laws) should be simple. I find bitterTea's definition of property pretty simple.

Quote from: JA37
There are already rules in place. They could be better and some things should never have been allowed to be patented, but for the most part it works.

Does It works? For who?
Recently content owners (not necessarily creators) have succeed in pushing a law that block webs that don't follow copyright in my country (spain). I guess this could be improved as a censorship tool.
But we can still avoid copyright with amule or bittorrent, for example.
Would David Bisbal stop producing "songs" if there's no copyright in Spain (many people could take that as an argument against copyright rather than for it)? Probably, because he couldn't pay all his advertisement machine without selling records.
With the internet technology allowing sharing music, the number of artist and concerts is in fact increasing. The music industry is growing, is the recording industry what is shrinking. Should we compensate them for the losses due to copyright infringement or for the losses due to decreasing prices in recording capital too?
How can the artist of Jamendo survive without relying on copyright?

Quote from: JA37
How it's enforced? By laws, and fees for those who break the laws.

My point is, how the authorities identify law breakers?
I think that laws that can't be enforced should not exist at all.

Quote from: JA37
How to protect it from other countries? Unilateral trade agreements.

What if the other country doesn't want to make an agreement that they don't like?

Quote from: JA37
Why should I invest in Intellectual property when I can't protect my investment. If I invest in my house I am allowed to protect it.

This depends on how do you define protection.
If someone builds 2000 houses around yours, you're investment will be diminished.
Should the state protect all investments?

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
zef
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 25, 2011, 01:37:43 PM
 #249

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but there are 2 great books on anti-IP laws and theory:

Against Intellectual Monopoly:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

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

I suggest anyone curious about this topic read these and educate themselves.  Even if you dont necessarily agree with everything, you will have a better idea of the strongest arguments for and against copyright.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
May 25, 2011, 07:29:54 PM
 #250

Will people stop having ideas if its production is not regulated?
No, but they might not capitalize them.

Quote
I think property laws (in fact all laws) should be simple. I find bitterTea's definition of property pretty simple.
Use similar definition for IP then. If you are the first to claim an idea it's yours for a limited time and you can captialize it.

Quote
Does It works? For who?
Society.

Quote
Recently content owners (not necessarily creators) have succeed in pushing a law that block webs that don't follow copyright in my country (spain). I guess this could be improved as a censorship tool.
But we can still avoid copyright with amule or bittorrent, for example.
Would David Bisbal stop producing "songs" if there's no copyright in Spain (many people could take that as an argument against copyright rather than for it)? Probably, because he couldn't pay all his advertisement machine without selling records.
With the internet technology allowing sharing music, the number of artist and concerts is in fact increasing. The music industry is growing, is the recording industry what is shrinking. Should we compensate them for the losses due to copyright infringement or for the losses due to decreasing prices in recording capital too?
How can the artist of Jamendo survive without relying on copyright?
IP is more than crappy music. And copyright for music is something that should be looked at closely. It's currently not balanced, and tilted way too much to the copyright holders advantage.


Quote
My point is, how the authorities identify law breakers?
I think that laws that can't be enforced should not exist at all.
I agree that unenforceable laws shouldn't exist. I don't see how this relates to IP.
If I invent something and is given a temporary monopoly and someone else produces my invention and sells it, we'll meet in court if he doesn't licence the IP from me.
If someone copies my idea in his/her own home and doesn't tell anyone it's hard to get to, but it's still illegal, just like murder is illegal even if no one discovers it.


Quote
What if the other country doesn't want to make an agreement that they don't like?
Things like these are usually handled through WTO, NAFTA or similar organizations. It's a normal contract that people here seem to like so much.

Quote
This depends on how do you define protection.
If someone builds 2000 houses around yours, you're investment will be diminished.
Should the state protect all investments?

What others do with their property isn't my business. As long as they don't damage my property while they do it. I didn't say protect investment. I said protect property. If someone find another way to do the thing that my IP does, which is different from my way, then they are free to do it. Just like your example with the houses. 

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
stillfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile
May 25, 2011, 08:31:01 PM
 #251

Quote
I think property laws (in fact all laws) should be simple. I find bitterTea's definition of property pretty simple.
Use similar definition for IP then. If you are the first to claim an idea it's yours for a limited time and you can captialize it.

It's interesting that you are commenting this in a thread titled "Read this before having an opinion".

I'm not going to rehash the thread, but note that if you truly believed you could apply natural rights and homesteading to ideas, then any idea you 'mixed your labour with' would be yours or your assigns' not for a limited time but forever. Does that still sound like a good idea for society? Have you paid your wheel and fire usage fees this month?

Lost your wallet password? Try Stillfire's Password Recovery Service.
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
 #252

IP is theft.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
June 09, 2011, 06:41:07 AM
 #253

Quote
I think property laws (in fact all laws) should be simple. I find bitterTea's definition of property pretty simple.
Use similar definition for IP then. If you are the first to claim an idea it's yours for a limited time and you can captialize it.

It's interesting that you are commenting this in a thread titled "Read this before having an opinion".

I'm not going to rehash the thread, but note that if you truly believed you could apply natural rights and homesteading to ideas, then any idea you 'mixed your labour with' would be yours or your assigns' not for a limited time but forever. Does that still sound like a good idea for society? Have you paid your wheel and fire usage fees this month?

From BitterTea: "If it's unowned you can homestead it, which is just whatever method society accepts as a market of proving "I claimed this first"."
So, why not use a similar one on ideas, just like I wrote? I had this idea first, it's now mine. However since everyone understands that there's a difference between an idea and a spot of land, we tweak the rule a little. You don't own the idea forever, like with the land, but for a limited time. See, not that hard.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
June 09, 2011, 06:48:57 AM
 #254

Quote
I think property laws (in fact all laws) should be simple. I find bitterTea's definition of property pretty simple.
Use similar definition for IP then. If you are the first to claim an idea it's yours for a limited time and you can captialize it.

It's interesting that you are commenting this in a thread titled "Read this before having an opinion".

I'm not going to rehash the thread, but note that if you truly believed you could apply natural rights and homesteading to ideas, then any idea you 'mixed your labour with' would be yours or your assigns' not for a limited time but forever. Does that still sound like a good idea for society? Have you paid your wheel and fire usage fees this month?

From BitterTea: "If it's unowned you can homestead it, which is just whatever method society accepts as a market of proving "I claimed this first"."
So, why not use a similar one on ideas, just like I wrote? I had this idea first, it's now mine. However since everyone understands that there's a difference between an idea and a spot of land, we tweak the rule a little. You don't own the idea forever, like with the land, but for a limited time. See, not that hard.

The entire purpose of homesteading is a fair and transparent way of assigning usage rights to objects that can only be used by a single entity at a time. Ideas can be used by an infinite number of entities at the same time, so it does not follow that a similar framework fits.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
June 09, 2011, 07:38:11 AM
 #255

The entire purpose of homesteading is a fair and transparent way of assigning usage rights to objects that can only be used by a single entity at a time. Ideas can be used by an infinite number of entities at the same time, so it does not follow that a similar framework fits.

Why not. It's just rules. You can tweak rules. Unless you're ideologically stuck.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
June 09, 2011, 08:11:02 AM
 #256

The entire purpose of homesteading is a fair and transparent way of assigning usage rights to objects that can only be used by a single entity at a time. Ideas can be used by an infinite number of entities at the same time, so it does not follow that a similar framework fits.

Why not. It's just rules. You can tweak rules. Unless you're ideologically stuck.

I'm saying there's no point to. You don't have to have a system of determining ownership of something that everybody can use simultaneously. You seem ideologically stuck on the notion that an individual deserves payment when another individual makes use of "their" ideas. Alternatively said, that an individual should be able to use physical force in order to control the use of an idea that they share with others.
niemivh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
June 09, 2011, 08:43:30 AM
 #257

Economics in One Lesson: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

It's a great read. It's brief. It doesn't go into a lot of technical detail but it does illustrate a central fallacy that many people, even some economists, make when thinking about economics. If you haven't read this book, I'm going to assume you're ignorant about economics until proven otherwise.

That is like saying that if you haven't read the Koran you're ignorant about god and spirituality.  This is a political document first and a treatise on economics second.  Let's not forget that.  There are other schools of economics.  Everything beyond the basics in economics is a fundamentally political statement.

I'll keep my politics out of your economics if you keep your economics out of my politics.

16LdMA6pCgq9ULrstHmiwwwbGe1BJQyDqr
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
June 09, 2011, 08:51:43 AM
 #258

I'm saying there's no point to. You don't have to have a system of determining ownership of something that everybody can use simultaneously. You seem ideologically stuck on the notion that an individual deserves payment when another individual makes use of "their" ideas. Alternatively said, that an individual should be able to use physical force in order to control the use of an idea that they share with others.

The way I see it labour is labour, no matter if you put it into IP or into a patch of land. You should somehow have the right to that labour, but as stated above, there's a difference between them so we tweak the rules governing them. According to you the fact that only one person CAN use physical property at any given time is the point, but that's just an ideological argument. If you're not using your property during the day, and I do, it has absolutely no impact on you. Yet you say I can't do that because you have the right to the labour you put into it. Yet you're not willing to extend that to IP.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 09, 2011, 10:24:55 AM
 #259

Economics in One Lesson: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

It's a great read. It's brief. It doesn't go into a lot of technical detail but it does illustrate a central fallacy that many people, even some economists, make when thinking about economics. If you haven't read this book, I'm going to assume you're ignorant about economics until proven otherwise.

That is like saying that if you haven't read the Koran you're ignorant about god and spirituality.  This is a political document first and a treatise on economics second.  Let's not forget that.  There are other schools of economics.  Everything beyond the basics in economics is a fundamentally political statement.

Well, really, this book IS just the basics, but even so I disagree with your statement. I'm reading Mises' Human Action right now, and he delineates between political ideas and economics. True economics, after all, are amoral and apolitical.
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
 #260

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but there are 2 great books on anti-IP laws and theory:

Against Intellectual Monopoly:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

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

I suggest anyone curious about this topic read these and educate themselves.  Even if you dont necessarily agree with everything, you will have a better idea of the strongest arguments for and against copyright.

Very excellent books, I must say.  And yes, even if you are pro-IP, you should at-least familiarize yourself with the anti-IP arguments from reading these books before arguing with us.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 »  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!