Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

[phillipsjk]

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.

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" 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: 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.

[shogodz89]

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?

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?

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**.

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.

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?

Jonald.

Shall we (me and you) charge a copyright fee for this discussion, sthat o 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 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.

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

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.

[Cranky4u]

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...

[chipmadness]

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

[darkota]

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?

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?

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**.

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.

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?

Jonald.

Shall we (me and you) charge a copyright fee for this discussion, sthat o 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 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.

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

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.

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.

[inBitweTrust]

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?

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.

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

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. 

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

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.

[inBitweTrust]

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.

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.

[inBitweTrust]

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.)

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.

 

[jonald_fyookball]

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.)

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.

[iluvpie60]

Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

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

it isn't hard at all.

[inBitweTrust]

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.

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.

[franky1]

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

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

[twiifm]

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

[franky1]

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.

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

[Beliathon]

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.  

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.

[shogodz89]

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.

[inBitweTrust]

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.

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

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

[twiifm]

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.

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

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 insure lobbyists pay off the right politicians to insure their monopoly on the "idea of a cartoon mouse".

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

[inBitweTrust]

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.

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

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 insure lobbyists pay off the right politicians to insure their monopoly on the "idea of a cartoon mouse".

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.

[phillipsjk]

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.

Melancholy Elephants predicts that production will go down in the face of perpetual copyright terms: even with half the population working in the creative arts.