Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

[twiifm]

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.

[inBitweTrust]

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?

[twiifm]

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

[inBitweTrust]

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.

 

[twiifm]

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

[Nerazzura]

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

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

[inBitweTrust]

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

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)

[jubalix]

[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.

[twiifm]

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

[Soros Shorts]

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)....

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.

[jonald_fyookball]

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

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.

[Azlan]

[snip]

 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.

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.

[albus]

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.

[oppahdoggystyle]

Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin?

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

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.

[phillipsjk]

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

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.

[gbooz]

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

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.

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.

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)

[Jouke]

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

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.

Clearly the Bitcoin community rejected our proposal, it took even 9 hours for my pull request to be closed.

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.

[inBitweTrust]

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

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.  

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

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.

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

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.

[Aswan]

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)....

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.

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.

[ArnoldChippy]

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.

I agree, it is contradictory and therefore unfair. It is immoral because it's designed to suppress people from freely exchanging information.


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.

Have you actually read what you've written there? Which planet did they fly to? The last sentence is a gem -  they wouldn't give because they couldn't take... so they clear off!! As if only smart & talented people have anything of importance to contribute to our planet.

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.

I assume you're not referring to my typo. It was a simple attempt to illustrate that a collection of words is just that. Your response merely proves the point, that, if you'd had to pay to read that discussion, you would not be a happy bunny.

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.


Yes, Capitalism does drive progress and that's why everyone can copy information - it's freely available due to computers and the internet etc. If the authors of these mighty works are so worried that I might catch sight of it without paying, then either keep it private, or release in a form that I can not access. Best also put a ban on legitimate customers talking about it too - wouldn't want any precious nuggets getting into the wild.


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.

I understand something about the free market as I've run my own business for 35 years. However, I don't understand the point you are making.


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.


Do you not see it would be immoral for the banks to have absolute monetary control of humanity and all because of a private deal between two parties? When I say banks, I actually mean the few people in control of the banks.