The end of copyright and patent is where we should be headed

[CIYAM]

The concepts of copyright and patent are very much 20th century ones.

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

But we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

What we see now is that in the US companies try and keep copyrights alive "forever" (just look at how many years they keep extending the time frame for copyright on music) and with patents many corporations are able to just "stifle" any development of new ideas (which was supposed to be the very point of patents) which is why it has taken so long for many alternative energy technologies to even appear.

We don't need these "artifacts of the past" as we have "crowd funding" and "crowd sourcing" to get things done much more efficiently.

Let's stop supporting antiquated ideas and start pushing forward some new thinking (this is the space that Bitcoin is a big part of).

[1715228496]

1715228496

[1715228496]

1715228496

[1715228496]

1715228496

[1715228496]

1715228496

[1715228496]

1715228496

[Swordsoffreedom]

In agreement that their should be new models of revenue sharing such as Itunes digital copies etc is where development needs to grow
Also reimbursing artists directly less major studios but more cooperatives
Plus Mickey Mouse laws .... some copyrights are beyond ridiculous.

[Jakesy]

The concepts of copyright and patent are very much 20th century ones.

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

But we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

What we see now is that in the US companies try and keep copyrights alive "forever" (just look at how many years they keep extending the time frame for copyright on music) and with patents many corporations are able to just "stifle" any development of new ideas (which was supposed to be the very point of patents) which is why it has taken so long for many alternative energy technologies to even appear.

We don't need these "artifacts of the past" as we have "crowd funding" and "crowd sourcing" to get things done much more efficiently.

Let's stop supporting antiquated ideas and start pushing forward some new thinking (this is the space that Bitcoin is a big part of).

100% agree.  We still live by and abide by a set of rules that were created before a lot of our technology nowadays.  Society is completely and vastly different than it was just 50 years ago. 

We need to figure out a way to adapt and adopt as a human race.  We're such small picture beings...

Who knows, maybe we'll all work together in the future when we realize it's just one short life we have - ownership of ANYTHING doesn't matter in the long run.  Let's make our lives here the best they possibly can be during our short tenure on Earth.  I doubt I'll get to see this in my lifetime.

[Lauda]

The copyright laws have done nobody any good besides the greedy, and already rich people. One could find examples in almost every industry. A fine example is the music industry.                                                   Patents are just like obstacles that are causing trouble when someone is trying to make something new.

One should try patenting a patent request. 

[newIndia]

The concepts of copyright and patent are very much 20th century ones.

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

But we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

What we see now is that in the US companies try and keep copyrights alive "forever" (just look at how many years they keep extending the time frame for copyright on music) and with patents many corporations are able to just "stifle" any development of new ideas (which was supposed to be the very point of patents) which is why it has taken so long for many alternative energy technologies to even appear.

We don't need these "artifacts of the past" as we have "crowd funding" and "crowd sourcing" to get things done much more efficiently.

Let's stop supporting antiquated ideas and start pushing forward some new thinking (this is the space that Bitcoin is a big part of).

Contact https://twitter.com/kimdotcom and join https://internet.org.nz/

[Beliathon]

The concepts of copyright and patent are very much 20th century ones.

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

But we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

What we see now is that in the US companies try and keep copyrights alive "forever" (just look at how many years they keep extending the time frame for copyright on music) and with patents many corporations are able to just "stifle" any development of new ideas (which was supposed to be the very point of patents) which is why it has taken so long for many alternative energy technologies to even appear.

We don't need these "artifacts of the past" as we have "crowd funding" and "crowd sourcing" to get things done much more efficiently.

Let's stop supporting antiquated ideas and start pushing forward some new thinking (this is the space that Bitcoin is a big part of).

Couldn't agree more, patents and copyrights are completely out of place and counter-productive in the digital age. One of the challenges of our time will be destroying the stigma against culture sharing ("piracy").

The near-future is decentralized, open-source, and crowdfunded, that much is clear. Disobedience equals progress here, folks. Obedience means stagnancy.

[pawel7777]

I wouldn't say that all patent/copyrights laws are wrong. If you created successful brand, you should be able to somehow protect it from competitors who would just rip off your logo/name and confuse customers.

But things got out of hand, what was meant to be a 'protection' turned into full blown industry. Recent lawsuit lost by apple (~$500m) to some small company who only capitalise on holding patents, proves the case:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/apple-loses-patent-case-to-small-texas-company/?_r=0


Other problem is the amount of ridiculous 'inventions' being granted. My personal favourite is the guy from Australia who managed to patent a wheel (although he did it to show how bad the new patent laws are):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

An Australian man has been issued with an innovation patent for the wheel after setting out to test the workability of a new national patent system.

John Keogh was issued the innovation patent for a "circular transportation facilitation device" under a patent system introduced in May 2001.

[gentlemand]

One of the challenges of our time will be destroying the stigma against culture sharing ("piracy").

I'm not so sold on that.

It's great that someone enjoys a download. The mugs who poured a ton of time, money and talent into making it available deserve compensating.

Crowd funding and micro payment may well be the way forward, but there's a pretty mucky middle ground to be crossed yet.

Anyone under 35 or so effectively assumes that all media can be free. We may end up up to our noses in self indulgent shite that's given away.  I'd rather pay for some professional standards and filtration.

[Joshuar]

The concepts of copyright and patent are very much 20th century ones.

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

But we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

What we see now is that in the US companies try and keep copyrights alive "forever" (just look at how many years they keep extending the time frame for copyright on music) and with patents many corporations are able to just "stifle" any development of new ideas (which was supposed to be the very point of patents) which is why it has taken so long for many alternative energy technologies to even appear.

We don't need these "artifacts of the past" as we have "crowd funding" and "crowd sourcing" to get things done much more efficiently.

Let's stop supporting antiquated ideas and start pushing forward some new thinking (this is the space that Bitcoin is a big part of).

I entirely disagree. It's in the fact the opposite of what you propose. Copyright laws encourage entrepreneurs to do and create new things(inventions, ideas, and the like). Yes, Bitcoin's open source initiative is great, but you cannot expect everything in life to be open-sourced, just as you cannot expect everything in life to be decentralized(It's way too costly and some things are close to impossible to decentralize and still have a working product, such as a company or school). Alternative energy(If were talking about electricity and others being an alternative for oil as an ex), has been around for a long time, it's just that oil has such a grip and is so profitable for countries and companies, that it's hard for other alternate sources to make a big appearance as of yet.

I agree only upto the point that there are some people that abuse the copyright system, such a the guy who patented SSL(and has been sueing companies and winning for over a decade).But for most people, copyright laws is a protection for them so that their hard work doesn't get ripped of by some fool who copies them. Ending something as needed as Copyright laws would ensure utter chaos(As scammers take advantage and try to pass of other people's products as their own, without fear of being prosecuted). It would be x100 worse than the current haven scammers have with Bitcoin based services(All those ponzi schemes, exchanges stealing coins, etc).

[runpaint]

If you guys hate the right to private property, which is the foundation of all freedoms, then go live in the USSR.  Wait, it doesn't exist anymore?

Nobody will spend millions of dollars to cure diseases, if their discoveries can be used equally by people who spent nothing.

Nobody will buy a microphone for $100,000 to record an album, if they can't sell that album because everyone else is giving it away for free.

Nobody will spend 3 years writing a book, if that book will not be their own property.

[Beliathon]

If you guys hate the right to private property, which is the foundation of all freedoms, then go live in the USSR.

Private property isn't a human right enjoyed by all, it is an often inherited privilege enjoyed by a fraction of the human population. If you trace back through time you'd find that damn near all property can be linked to past violence.
If we as a civilization are to ever reject violence as a legitimate tool, we must begin by rejecting the over-engineered resource allocation which was forged in the blood of our forebears.

Nobody will spend millions of dollars to cure diseases, if their discoveries can be used equally by people who spent nothing.

Nobody will buy a microphone for $100,000 to record an album, if they can't sell that album because everyone else is giving it away for free.

Nobody will spend 3 years writing a book, if that book will not be their own property.

How many songs go unsung, how many books go unwritten, how much genius is wasted because the would-be writers, artists, and authors are instead wasting their lives scrambling to make next month's rent? We'll never know what might have been.

Fortunately for the future denizens of Earth, civilization will continue to socially evolve whether you butthurt capitalists like it or not.

[ajareselde]

Wouldnt that open up another problem with people who will exploit no copyright laws, and just steal other proples ideas?
Imagine working on a project and investing alot of time and money into research, and someone just copies your findings and uses as their own?
Either im missing out on something or u didnt think this through.

cheers

[runpaint]

How many songs go unsung, how many books go unwritten, how much genius is wasted because the would-be writers, artists, and authors are instead wasting their lives scrambling to make next month's rent?

Yes, most of them are poor, and now you want to take away their right to make money from their work.  

If you actually care about the truth, compare the number of songs and books written in the past 100 years to the number of songs and books written in the rest of human history.

And if you really want to see the majority of songs unsung and books unwritten, take away any chance for people to make a living doing it.

[Beliathon]

Wouldn't that open up another problem with people who will exploit no copyright laws, and just steal other peoples ideas?

The idea that we should tolerate "ownership" of ideas in the information age shows just how insidious and malignant the profit motive has grown in our time. We shouldn't even tolerate ownership of bits of earth, let alone ideas.

Yes, most of them are poor, and now you want to take away their right to make money from their work.

Or we could provide decent baseline food, shelter, healthcare, and education to all human beings as a birthright. What would art look like in a world where potential artists aren't forced to work soul-crushing jobs just to survive, their suffering often robbing them of creativity and passion?

And if you really want to see the majority of songs unsung and books unwritten, take away any chance for people to make a living doing it.

You're defending the same capitalism that has systematically defunded the arts over the course of the past three decades, the same system which has made common the use of the phrase "starving artist", the same culture which isn't disgusted by the ubiquity of that phrase.

[runpaint]

Or we could provide decent baseline food, shelter, healthcare, and education to all human beings as a birthright.

You sound like a spoiled child.  Where will all this food and healthcare come from?  Do you think money, goods, and services automatically appear every time a baby is born?

Throughout human history, starvation and death have been the everyday norm.  Now that we have finally found a system that changes that, you whine because it takes work.

What would art look like in a world where potential artists aren't forced to work soul-crushing jobs just to survive

Take it up with God, or nature.  We have to eat, and food isn't free.  If you actually expect that to change, you're an idiot.

Nobody forces anybody to work.  That's just life.  If you don't want to work, then don't.  Most people who call themselves artists have never done a day's work, and they get paid accordingly.

If you want to remove all suffering from all artists, then say goodbye to Van Gogh, Beethoven, Emily Dickinson, and pretty much every good artist.

You're defending the same capitalism that has systematically defunded the arts over the course of the past three decades

No, it hasn't. 

the same system which has made common the use of the phrase "starving artist"

Starving artists existed before the modern era, and so did loudmouths who are angry at the world for not giving them everything for free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_artist

[Joshuar]

Wouldnt that open up another problem with people who will exploit no copyright laws, and just steal other proples ideas?
Imagine working on a project and investing alot of time and money into research, and someone just copies your findings and uses as their own?
Either im missing out on something or u didnt think this through.

cheers

Precisely.

[runpaint]

Private property isn't a human right enjoyed by all, it is an often inherited privilege enjoyed by a fraction of the human population.

Can I walk into your house right now, push you away from your computer, and start using that computer for myself?

You're so privileged that you have the privilege of pretending you're not privileged.

Personal property rights are the foundation of all civilization, and the only people against it are those who want to tear down all of civilization.  

If you trace back through time you'd find that damn near all property can be linked to past violence.

So are all of our lives.  All of us are descended from a few murderers and rapists, and we wouldn't have been born without the violence of our ancestors.  

What are you going to do about that?  Is there anything you can do, other than kill yourself?

The near-future is decentralized, open-source, and crowdfunded, that much is clear

Crowdfunding has no future, too many cultural Marxists have already ruined it by scamming too much.  Too many of your beloved "starving artists" took their $100,000 and produced nothing.

[ajareselde]

Wouldn't that open up another problem with people who will exploit no copyright laws, and just steal other peoples ideas?

The idea that we should tolerate "ownership" of ideas in the information age shows just how insidious and malignant the profit motive has grown in our time. We shouldn't even tolerate ownership of bits of earth, let alone ideas.

Yes, i understand how frustrating it can be knowing that someone "owns an idea", and in some ideal society it would be nonsence to do so, but we live in a capitalist age,
and knowing that it takes money to fund research to bring ideas through trial and error's into a working product, it would be insane to asume that someone wouldnt exploit that.
And without "ownership of bits of earth" you would gain freedom of movement, but there would be alot of people wanting the same spot under the sun, how would you
regulate that, if not by ownership of some sort ?

cheers

[Beliathon]

If you trace back through time you'd find that damn near all property can be linked to past violence.

So are all of our lives.  All of us are descended from a few murderers and rapists, and we wouldn't have been born without the violence of our ancestors.  

What are you going to do about that?

Nothing, because as you yourself admitted, there's nothing that can be done. The clever reader may note that this is very much NOT THE CASE when it comes to the possibility of egalitarian distribution of resources.

You sound like a spoiled child.

You can do better than weak ad hominem attacks, no?

Where will all this food and healthcare come from?

Capitalism wastes food on an industrial scale. Whatever comes after will by necessity be much more efficient at resource distribution.

The health-profit parasite industry we call "Health Insurance" in this country is widely regarded as toxic mimic of real health care. It's almost darkly comical how bad it is in the USA, and reveals well the dangers of mass indoctrination and mass obedience.

Health Insurance execs are laughing their way to the bank with bloodmoney earned from denying access to healthcare to millions of Americans, including countless dead children. That's the reality you're supposed to accept because "capitalism", dear reader.

Do you think money, goods, and services automatically appear every time a baby is born?

I think in the 21st century, the exchange of money is going to become an irrelevant ritual from a bygone era, no more necessary for feeding the children of the world than it is for coercing primates to fuck.

Throughout human history, starvation and death have been the everyday norm.

You could say the same for slavery, torture, and rape. Still, I think you'll agree we should seek to distance civilization from these as much as possible given the technology at our disposal.

Take it up with God

I don't see how superstition is going to be anything but a hindrance here.

... or nature.  We have to eat, and food isn't free.

All food on this planet is free until the violence-enforced profit motive builds a big ass barbed-wire fence around it. I have this theory that the more a person talks about human nature, the less they understand about it. Listening to a capitalist preach about human nature is about as useful as listening to a priest talk to you about science. As a civilized primate, the first thing you need to understand about your nature is that it is being held hostage by a lifetime of cultural indoctrination. That is step one on the road to recovery.

.If you actually expect that to change, you're an idiot.

I expect everything to change when it comes to human existence. In fact I expect continuous change to be the only constant.

Nobody forces anybody to work.  That's just life.

The Royal Navy probably said something similarly fascistic to the men they press-ganged into service aboard their ships. Nevertheless, the militant social movement called piracy blossomed in the face of these lies.

In other news, Foxconn constructed huge nets around their massive factory-dorms to prevent further worker suicides. When you say "that's just life", what you mean is "that's just life for the working poor of the world. The rich don't have to work."

If you don't want to work, then don't.

“America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.”
― Tom Morello

Yes, i understand how frustrating it can be knowing that someone "owns an idea", and in some ideal society it would be nonsence to do so, but we live in a capitalist age

Not for long.

Personal property rights are the foundation of all civilization, and the only people against it are those who want to tear down all of civilization.

That's precisely why private property has been so difficult to shake. Modern capitalism predates the age of science itself, it's built into the very architecture of our language (e.g. "I don't buy that").

It's no wonder we're at such a loss as to where to go from here, as we stand by helplessly watching capitalism die, as the life support of neverending debt slowly fails.

A very old lie is easily mistaken for the truth. But how feeble does a ten thousand year old lie become the day it first meets the truth? Ask any scientist.
 

[runpaint]

You sound like a spoiled child.

You can do better than weak ad hominem attacks, no?

Actually I was providing a valid comparison between you and a spoiled child, which can be explored thoroughly to explain your motives and solutions.

It's not just a weak insult, like when you started by calling me a "butthurt capitalist" and then came back to whine like a child about ad hominems.

Capitalism wastes food on an industrial scale. Whatever comes after will by necessity be much more efficient at resource distribution.

You claim that any system will be better, which is how you excuse your lack of a better alternative.  Fortunately for the rest of us, history has countless examples of alternative systems which are vastly inferior.

I think in the 21st century money is going to quickly become an irrelevant ritual from a bygone era

Wasn't that supposed to be the 20th century?  Marxism had more than enough chances.  It failed.

Throughout human history, starvation and death have been the everyday norm.

You could say the same for slavery, torture, and rape.

Are you trying to bring those back too?  Your ideas have been proven to result in plenty of starvation and death, but you are correct in mentioning the slavery, torture, and rape that are happening in North Korea thanks to people like you.

Take it up with God, or nature.

I don't see how superstition is going to be anything but a hindrance here.

You think nature is a superstition?  Then go ahead and test it scientifically.  Just stop eating, and see how long you last.  Otherwise, we can all agree that work and survival are not anyone's fault, but something we all are born into with no possible end short of death.

... or nature.  We have to eat, and food isn't free.

All food on this planet is free until the violence-enforced profit motive builds a big ass barbed-wire fence around it.

That makes no sense.  At what point in history did humans have more food than they now have?  At what point in history did people not starve?  At what point in history would a starving man willingly let another man take all his food, "for free"?

I have this theory that the more a person talks about human nature, the less they understand about it.

And I've noticed that the more a person whines about capitalism, the less he understands about anything at all.

Listening to a capitalist preach about human nature is about as useful as listening to a priest talk to you about science.

I just thought I'd try to explain to you that humans need to eat, and nobody can be blamed for that fact.  Obviously it was a waste of time to explain the most basic facts of existence to you.

As a civilized primate, the first thing you need to understand about your nature is that it is being held hostage by a lifetime of cultural indoctrination.

That's the first thing?  Before eating?  Because plenty of communists starved to death after they got rid of capitalism, rich people, and private property. 

But not cultural indoctrination, you'll never get rid of that.  It's your #1 favorite thing, which is why communists never give up their propaganda even while they starve.  Go ahead and trade your food for your zealous beliefs, but don't get so angry when the rest of us choose food over hatred of everyone who has more than us.

.If you actually expect that to change, you're an idiot.

I expect everything to change when it comes to human existence.

Cool story.  You expect us to stop dying, and to stop requiring food.  Then by all means, go start your utopia of immortals.  Meanwhile, those of us who need food will continue either working or starving.

Nobody forces anybody to work.  That's just life.

The Royal Navy probably said something similarly fascistic to the men they press-ganged into service aboard their ships.

What, this year?  I thought you were just whining about current circumstances.  Are you also blaming everything in history on our current system, retroactively?

In other news, Foxconn constructed huge nets around their massive factory-dorms to prevent further worker suicides.

And you're blaming what happens in China on capitalism?  Too bad you have to blame communism first.

“America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace.

Yes, the main complaint of whiny children is that someone else is in charge.  They hate their parents, they hate the government, they hate anyone who has more money, and they hate the idea of God. 

The problem is that once you've made yourself the sole authority over your own life, who will you blame for all your problems?

Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do

Actually you can quit the job whenever you want.  Sorry for pointing out the fact that everything you said is bullshit.

And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you.

Oh no!  GM factory workers don't own thousands of automobiles?  Let's riot!

Children love to whine about "fair pay", but they don't really want fair pay.  Because when the factory loses money and/or goes bankrupt, none of the workers want to pay their fair share of the debt.  They don't want to pay their fair share to buy and maintain the equipment, and, again, they can quit anytime they want and go work somewhere else.

The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.”

Exactly.  If you don't want to eat, then don't work.  That's been the case since the first human got hungry, and no revolution will ever change the fact that we need to eat.  So what is your point?

― Tom Morello

Made one good album, 24 years ago.  AND HE GOT PAID A LOT OF ROYALTIES THANKS TO COPYRIGHT LAWS, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE QUOTING HIM.

[Beliathon]

You claim that any system will be better, which is how you excuse your lack of a better alternative.  Fortunately for the rest of us, history has countless examples of alternative systems which are vastly inferior.

I claim only that any system from past civilization will almost certainly be inferior, and any system from future civilization will very likely be (ethically and otherwise) superior. I claim that just as capitalism was born, so too must it die. Capitalism is not immortal, no human system ever was.

Wasn't that supposed to be the 20th century?  Marxism had more than enough chances.  It failed.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but modern post/anti-capitalist thought extends quite a bit beyond Marx.

Your ideas have been proven to result in plenty of starvation and death, but you are correct in mentioning the slavery, torture, and rape that are happening in North Korea thanks to people like you.

"Anticapitalist Bitcointalk forum posts made North Korea happen, guise!"  

I guess you'll be conveniently ignoring the fact that capitalist sex-slave trafficking is a 40 billion dollar per year global industry? Dat profit motive though.

That makes no sense.  At what point in history did humans have more food than they now have?

Not more food, but less people (higher infant mortality), and less waste.

At what point in history would a starving man willingly let another man take all his food, "for free"?

In the amazon basin, during food shortages elders were often known to "go for a walk in the forest", which is a euphemism for go out to die, so that the young may live.
This is in stark contrast to modern american life, where the old so often become the predators of the young. And if that isn't the definition of dystopia, I don't know what is.

What, this year?  I thought you were just whining about current circumstances.  Are you also blaming everything in history on our current system, retroactively?

You do realize that capitalism existed in the 18th century, correct? What, did you think piracy existed before capitalism? Good lord, you're beyond my help.

 Meanwhile, those of us who need food will continue either working or starving.

Ah, I see we've arrived at the part of the story where all capitalists are rewarded in exact proportion to how hard they work. The part where the wealthy elite all work 60+ hour work weeks just like the single mom with three kids.
The part where inheritance and spoiled rich kids don't exist. The part where you mentally sanitize capitalism of all its obvious fuedal roots. The part where the mythical "communism" still exists in 2015 in Russia and China, even though everyone knows those nations are hyper-capitalist in practice.

Just world fallacy is so absurd, it's amazing how it survives, even in the minds of people as socially-engineered as you.

[runpaint]

I guess you'll be conveniently ignoring the fact that capitalist sex-slave trafficking is a 40 billion dollar per year global industry? Dat profit motive though.

So you're fine with slavery and rape, as long as nobody makes any profits?

Not more food, but less people (higher infant mortality), and less waste.

Less waste, but more dead babies?  So throwing away a banana is waste, but a human being dying isn't waste. 

Thanks for clarifying your lack of value for human life.

In the amazon basin, during food shortages elders were often known to "go for a walk in the forest", which is a euphemism for go out to die, so that the young may live.
This is in stark contrast to modern american life, where the old so often becomes the predators of the young.

Okay, we get it!  You want people to die, babies and old people, and rich people, and anyone who is "extra".  You've made your point.

Ah, I see we've arrived at the part of the story where all capitalists are rewarded in exact proportion to how hard they work. The part where the wealthy elite all work 60+ hour work weeks just like the single mom with three kids.

Don't pretend to care about the single mom with three kids, you've already admitted that you want her kids to die.

[Soros Shorts]

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

How would you apply this idea to something closer to home ... something like a Bitcoin mining ASIC? Say you are the owner of a fabless ASIC design firm and you've just spent the last 2 years designing the most efficient 16nm SHA256 mining chip. You send the digital design to a fab for manufacture. Should the fab be able to sell copies of your design to a third party? Or worse, manufacture extra chips using your masks and dump them on the market?

[Beliathon]

So you're fine with slavery and rape, as long as nobody makes any profits?

Really? What a weak strawman. Looks like we're done here.

Since 2013 this forum attracts most "wanna-get-rich" piece of shit all over the world.

QFT, but it comes with the territory of money.

[(oYo)]

If we were to eliminate patent and copyright laws without moving on to something like a 'gift economy', rich and powerful entities would simply steal your ideas and flood the market with their own versions. I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior. Frankly, I don't believe people will ever become intelligent, vigilant and responsible enough or care for one another enough, to break free from this perpetual master/slave relationship with one another.

<Edit> Isn't this topic better suited in the Politics & Society section?

[Btcvilla]

I think they should be more loosen, suing someone because they are also a mouse is not a good idea...

Looking at you Disney...

[Beliathon]

I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior.

Correct. This will happen.

[CIYAM]

How would you apply this idea to something closer to home ... something like a Bitcoin mining ASIC? Say you are the owner of a fabless ASIC design firm and you've just spent the last 2 years designing the most efficient 16nm SHA256 mining chip. You send the digital design to a fab for manufacture. Should the fab be able to sell copies of your design to a third party? Or worse, manufacture extra chips using your masks and dump them on the market?

It's very simple - you make a legal agreement with the fab manufacture called a "non-disclosure period" (I am not against those). If they break the agreement then you take them to court (and if you don't trust Chinese courts then just stop using Chinese manufacturing).

Coming to China did lead me to have to challenge my thinking as making money from copies is the model that the company I used to work for employed (and that just doesn't work in China).

But I haven't starved or gone crawling back to "the man" just because people here won't pay for software copies.

[Beliathon]

But I haven't starved or gone crawling back to "the man" just because people here won't pay for software copies.

A white westerner in China? Spoiler: you ARE the man.

[Quickseller]

How would you apply this idea to something closer to home ... something like a Bitcoin mining ASIC? Say you are the owner of a fabless ASIC design firm and you've just spent the last 2 years designing the most efficient 16nm SHA256 mining chip. You send the digital design to a fab for manufacture. Should the fab be able to sell copies of your design to a third party? Or worse, manufacture extra chips using your masks and dump them on the market?

It's very simple - you make a legal agreement with the fab manufacture called a "non-disclosure period" (I am not against those). If they break the agreement then you take them to court (and if you don't trust Chinese courts then just stop using Chinese manufacturing).

Coming to China did lead me to have to challenge my thinking as making money from copies is the model that the company I used to work for employed (and that just doesn't work in China).

But I haven't starved or gone crawling back to "the man" just because people here won't pay for software copies.

What would stop one of your customers from copying your design? The process would not be as easy as in Soros Shorts's hypothetical example, however someone could reverse engineer a design and dump it on the market.

Patents are a very important piece of business as they give business the protection they need for their investment in research and development of new technology and products.

[CIYAM]

Patents are a very important piece of business as they give business the protection they need for their investment in research and development of new technology and products.

That is what is often "claimed" but I've actually seen very little real evidence to back up said claims (but I've seen plenty of evidence to show that patents are being used to stifle innovation by companies that own them yet don't actual "use" them for anything except to prevent others from using a technology that they don't want to succeed).

What would stop one of your customers from copying your design? The process would not be as easy as in Soros Shorts's hypothetical example, however someone could reverse engineer a design and dump it on the market.

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

[Beliathon]

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

Not just yet, at least. 2014-15 hasn't exactly been kind to them, though. I guess I wouldn't complain if my 103 year old company had a 150+ billion dollar marketcap, though.

[Quickseller]

Patents are a very important piece of business as they give business the protection they need for their investment in research and development of new technology and products.

That is what is often "claimed" but I've actually seen very little real evidence to back up said claims (but I've seen plenty of evidence to show that patents are being used to stifle innovation by companies that own them yet don't actual "use" them for anything except to prevent others from using a technology that they don't want to succeed).

I would agree that we need some kind of reform when it comes to patient laws. There is an excess amount of litigation regarding patients, and many patients are created just to litigate in the future (and patients are often purchased for the sole purpose of litigation).

With that being said however I think that companies do need protection for their investments they make when inventing something. Why should you invest significant amounts of money to make some kind of invention when you could just wait for someone else to do the 'heavy lifting' for you.

What would stop one of your customers from copying your design? The process would not be as easy as in Soros Shorts's hypothetical example, however someone could reverse engineer a design and dump it on the market.

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

I honestly cannot say I am familiar with PC clones. However I can say that one of the biggest costs that mining manufacturers have is R&D. If someone was able to skip the R&D phase of developing their miners then they would be able to sell their miners for significantly less then companies that did need to bear this expense.

[Beliathon]

Why should you invest significant amounts of money to make some kind of invention when you could just wait for someone else to do the 'heavy lifting' for you.

This concern only really matters when you're not pals with the people printing the money (or for those borrowing millions interest-free). When you have that kind of game-rigging happening in the heart of your system, the rules no longer apply.

Besides, if your big company fails because some little guy copied you and undercut your prices, you'll just get bailed out anyway! Or even if you don't get bailed out, we all know the executives will have their golden parachutes ready.

[Quickseller]

Why should you invest significant amounts of money to make some kind of invention when you could just wait for someone else to do the 'heavy lifting' for you.

This concern only really matters when you're not pals with the people printing the money (or for those borrowing millions interest-free). When you have that kind of game-rigging happening in the heart of your system, the rules no longer apply.

Most companies do not have the ability to access unlimited amounts of money. Most companies do not have the ability to borrow at near interest free rates.

The interest rates that companies in the US borrow at are set by the markets

[CIYAM]

Let's start by taking a look at "open source" software.

According to the general theory that companies need to protect their "intellectual property" (a term I despise) the open source movement should have died almost as soon as it started (being simply some sort of "hippy dream").

Yet it not only has flourished but made things like Bitcoin possible (there could be no such thing as Bitcoin without open source).

[Quickseller]

Let's start by taking a look at "open source" software.

According to the general theory that companies need to protect their "intellectual property" (a term I despise) the open source movement should have died almost as soon as it started.

Yet it not only has flourished but made things like Bitcoin possible (there could be no such thing as Bitcoin without open source).

I personally like open source software, and I personally tend to use open source software when I can. However there is often no open source version of what I want/need to use.

The main problem with open source software is that entities do not have the incentive to work on it nor to improve it on any kind of large scale.There are some projects that people contribute good money too because they are working towards a good cause (e.g. tor), however in the grand scheme of things there are very few open source software/projects out there with 'mainstream potential', the likely reason being the lack of commercial incentives for entities to invest in open source projects.

[2112]

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

IBM PC was not reverse engineered. IBM published very detailed technical reference manual that contained entire schematic of the circuitry as well as full assembly listing of the BIOS. The details of the IBM PC platforms (classic, Jr, XT, AT & PS/2) were never secret.

Please don't mix up reverse engineering with various clean-room design methodologies.

I will however believe that there were people who were paid to pretend to do reverse-engineering and probably some of them were even paid to swear to that under the penalty of perjury or create an "alternative construction" that served as a proof of reverse engineering.

[CIYAM]

I think you might need to look a bit harder.

Not only are there entire open source operating systems but every single kind of application you can think of.

[Quickseller]

I think you might need to look a bit harder.

Not only are there entire open source operating systems but every single kind of application you can think of.

When looking at these operating systems and applications through the eyes of someone who does not have a lot of technical skills, would you say that these applications have the same level of both features and UI as "traditional" (patented) applications have? Will they have the same level of security as necessary for people who have little/no experience in managing their security?

[(oYo)]

I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior.

Correct. This will happen.

Even though I don't believe it's quite enough, the end of monetary inflation would surely be a great start and certainly a move in the right direction. Great video. Thx!

[koelen3]

I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior.

Correct. This will happen.

Even though I don't believe it's quite enough, the end of monetary inflation would surely be a great start and certainly a move in the right direction. Great video. Thx!

Though this all seems good but think for a moment that you work your ass off , day and night , crowd fund a project and then some rich guy steals your idea , get's it done and Ta-da! who get's the credit ?
The Rich guy because media will go to him.
The idea of patent is to get people what they deserve and if someone works their ass hard and gives us something good , they deserve the royalty

[CIYAM]

When looking at these operating systems and applications through the eyes of someone who does not have a lot of technical skills, would you say that these applications have the same level of both features and UI as "traditional" (patented) applications have? Will they have the same level of security as necessary for people who have little/no experience in managing their security?

Applications are not patented (although some algorithms are) and there are plenty of nice shiny UI open source applications.

As for security - I guess that you don't think Bitcoin is secure (better hope whatever online wallet you use doesn't disappear and take all your funds with it).

[CIYAM]

The idea of patent is to get people what they deserve and if someone works their ass hard and gives us something good , they deserve the royalty

The original idea of patent was perhaps like that - these days patents are used by large corporations to prevent anyone else from even entering their markets.

[(oYo)]

I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior.

Correct. This will happen.

Even though I don't believe it's quite enough, the end of monetary inflation would surely be a great start and certainly a move in the right direction. Great video. Thx!

Though this all seems good but think for a moment that you work your ass off , day and night , crowd fund a project and then some rich guy steals your idea , get's it done and Ta-da! who get's the credit ?
The Rich guy because media will go to him.
The idea of patent is to get people what they deserve and if someone works their ass hard and gives us something good , they deserve the royalty

I did address this in my original comment. You're missing some context here, since Beliathon didn't quote my comment in its entirety.

Here it is again.

If we were to eliminate patent and copyright laws without moving on to something like a 'gift economy', rich and powerful entities would simply steal your ideas and flood the market with their own versions. I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior. Frankly, I don't believe people will ever become intelligent, vigilant and responsible enough or care for one another enough, to break free from this perpetual master/slave relationship with one another.

<Edit> Isn't this topic better suited in the Politics & Society section?

[Quickseller]

When looking at these operating systems and applications through the eyes of someone who does not have a lot of technical skills, would you say that these applications have the same level of both features and UI as "traditional" (patented) applications have? Will they have the same level of security as necessary for people who have little/no experience in managing their security?

Applications are not patented (although some algorithms are) and there are plenty of nice shiny UI open source applications.

As for security - I guess that you don't think Bitcoin is secure (better hope whatever online wallet you use doesn't disappear and take all your funds with it).

bitcoin is the exception to the rule. Bitcoin also takes a lot of very advanced technology to secure it that is run by many very technological advanced people.

It is also very difficult for a non-technogical advanced person to secure their own bitcoin. The concept of using proper 'brain wallet' security measures is foreign to most people, the concept of how password protected backups work is foreign to most people. Many people do not have the technical expertise to be able to secure their bitcoin.

Don't get me wrong, I very much love bitcoin, and I very much believe in bitcoin's long term success, and I have put a lot of my time into earning bitcoin. However people do need to have their hand held.

[CIYAM]

bitcoin is the exception to the rule.

Not really sure what you are getting at as Bitcoin's UI is pretty "plain Jane" compared to many advanced open source applications (maybe you just need to familiarise yourself more with what is available).

[koelen3]

The idea of patent is to get people what they deserve and if someone works their ass hard and gives us something good , they deserve the royalty

The original idea of patent was perhaps like that - these days patents are used by large corporations to prevent anyone else from even entering their markets.

Excuse me but what's wrong with that?
That's how market's work and patent and royalty .
If someone Discovers /develops something , they have full copyright and patent on it and if someone decides to use it ! They pay for it .
Let's consider it as with your name , You have complete Copyright over your name and avatar. What if someone makes a same username (with a lil difference and same is not allowed) and gets same avatar( i know not allowed for now) BUT is a totally different guy and by chance chose the same avatar but have same name (I don't know if it is your real photo , we are just supposing it here) . People will instantly tag him as Fake even though he did nothing wrong , probably the poor guy doesn't even know what happened to him.
Same is in the case of Signature Campaigns , we lend our copyrighted names and Identity to them to earn some money.
The idea of Patent/Copyright is totally solid in my opinion and should stay.
~Regards Koelen3

[BADecker]

Attempting to limit one from how he wishes to distribute his private property is an attempt at socializing, which is really taking away freedom.

Anyone who wants to get rid of patenting and copyrighting is only attempting to shoot himself in the foot. Why? Because when we don't have patenting and copyrighting in place any longer, companies will spring up that will make sure that copies CAN'T be made without proper payment... through various forms of encryption and hardware.

As long as people keep on trusting an outdated patent/copyright system, they won't try to limit copying in more effective ways. But if the patent/copyright system is removed, people will do what they must to protect their property, which includes their sales. And what they do will be way beyond anything in the present encryption field.

Now, maybe that is the thing you are really after. If it is, I don't blame you. The patent/copyright system isn't working very well anyway.



EDIT: Would you buy a car with a sealed engine, so that private engine technology would be protected? Many people would.

[CIYAM]

Anyone who wants to get rid of patenting and copyrighting is only attempting to shoot himself in the foot. Why? Because when we don't have patenting and copyrighting in place any longer, companies will spring up that will make sure that copies CAN'T be made without proper payment... through various forms of encryption and hardware.

As effectively copyright and patent have never applied to China by your reasoning no-one would have any pirate software here because it would have already been protected.

Hmm... seems not to be the case.

[runpaint]

Holy fuck i had to put the dumbfck runpaint on ignore.

That's the best way to preserve your irrational beliefs, since you can't answer my points.

After all, i'm not surprised, since 2013 this forum attracts most "wanna-get-rich" piece of shit all over the world.

Yes, those greedy pieces of shit who only care about expensive cars and buying expensive women as status symbols....

If i could have 1 BTC for every thread like this when the price crashes, i would be banging Kimdarshian and driving a Maserati.

Those greedy capitalists who see the common people as pigs to be slaughtered for their own profits...

This is why we call the noobs pigs,.... and pigs are always slaughtered.

The same greedy grubbing capitalists with their lust for gold...

We will be on par with GOLD soon!

While so many people starve, these privileged few sit on mountains of wealth which is more than any man could ever need...

I did transfer of five figures and my bank asked me all kind of questions..... some even privacy related.

They laugh and count their money, salivating over the prospect of getting even MORE money...

LOL you know eventually btc will be over $10k right? Who would buy one coin? I'm sure ppl will buy mBTC

They control the means of production...

I have a BFL SC 60GH/s IN HAND for sale.

Asking $10,000 cash. I dont consider SHIPPING right now.

But you're right, all kinds of greedy assholes showed up in 2013.  One guy hadn't posted here since June 2012, and he showed up out of nowhere, over a year later, and his first post was an offer to sell a mining rig for $10,000. ^


I'm talking about the serious capitalist assholes who were drunk with money, and called everyone else idiots for selling at $800.

Booom.... i just took that 950 wall down!

FCK TA.... money talks bs walks!

And then of course after the price came back down, now he hates capitalism and money.  Because he can't afford to pay for as much sex as he used to.

blow couple btc and you can get 5 girls for the night

[NUFCrichard]

Why would companies spend money on R&D without the protection that a patent offers.  They pour money into testing and developing a product only to be usurped by larger companies later.
The copyright isn't so important to me, but I work in Biotechnology and clinical trials and product development takes a very long time and costs lots of money.  Usually big Pharma comes in and buys out the small companies soon after they get drug approval, but without a patent they wouldn't really need to, they could employ 1 or 2 of the key developers and they would have all of the information they need to make the product themselves.

Soon enough no one would do R&D and progress would slow significantly.  Look at what has happened to hollywood since people started pirating the films constantly.  There has hardly been an original film made there in the last 10 years!

[CIYAM]

Look at what has happened to hollywood since people started pirating the films constantly.  There has hardly been an original film made there in the last 10 years!

Actually all the evidence about Hollywood shows that they are making more money than *ever before* (and most of the new films make that money within their first week now). There is a good TED Talk about this specific thing (I suggest watching it).

Also if you look at the film Interstellar it was not only a great film but involved some incredible R&D with the some of the key special effects being actually based upon correctly modelled physics.

The film will have been "pirated" all over the place already but they have already made their profits (so it really isn't relevant to their "bottom line").

Basically Hollywood has "solved" the problem with the idea of getting people to go to cinemas in particular (and wanting to see the "new release" there).

So although they keep "crying poor" they have worked out how to re-invent themselves in the 21st century (maybe big Pharma needs some lessons).

[thompete]

After 3 pages, sorry If I am repeating this. But it is true , that COpyright and patents are a hindrance for growth. I mean, the main aim of the world is to move forward and grow, and using on innovations from other people. If you copyright something, then that basically hinders that growth.
Here is also an interesting video/article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/6888f36d-5487-4bfb-b670-32c581f1d2ce
Can't find the similar article I read.

[BitMos]

After 3 pages, sorry If I am repeating this. But it is true , that COpyright and patents are a hindrance for growth. I mean, the main aim of the world is to move forward and grow, and using on innovations from other people. If you copyright something, then that basically hinders that growth.
Here is also an interesting video/article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/6888f36d-5487-4bfb-b670-32c581f1d2ce
Can't find the similar article I read.

Please, understand that I have decided to appropriate myself the rights granted by copyrights, in the attribution to myself to the patent of fire. yes, simply that. following this dire legal fact, all of you will have to pay me 1% of your income (because today I am nice, but tomorrow it could be 20%), I hope you will agree, otherwise I would come with the "cops" to take your asset directly (it would be less nice).

the best and most efficient way to finish copyright holder is to not buy from them. it's a pause, but to breath you have to pause. . think of that like the winter of growth.

[jaysabi]

I believe copyrights have their place for people who create their work (be it a movie, song, book, etc.) and don't wish for you to consume it without compensation. Getting rid of copyrights gets rid of the legal protection of their property. Crowd funding is great for any artist who wants to go that route. I support copyright protections for those who don't.

[CIYAM]

Hollywood has managed to survive and "thrive" in the digital age by just changing their model (so they make all their profits in the first week).

If they can work it out then I think others can also.

[BitMos]

I believe copyrights have their place for people who create their work (be it a movie, song, book, etc.) and don't wish for you to consume it without compensation. Getting rid of copyrights gets rid of the legal protection of their property. Crowd funding is great for any artist who wants to go that route. I support copyright protections for those who don't.

reverse my statement and you will see it's true too.

[Beliathon]

Please, understand that I have decided to appropriate myself the rights granted by copyrights, in the attribution to myself to the patent of fire. yes, simply that. following this dire legal fact, all of you will have to pay me 1% of your income (because today I am nice, but tomorrow it could be 20%), I hope you will agree, otherwise I would come with the "cops" to take your asset directly (it would be less nice).

This guy gets it.

the best and most efficient way to finish copyright holder is to not buy from them. it's a pause, but to breath you have to pause. . think of that like the winter of growth.

I'd so go one step further, once you have the information they are trying to own, distribute it as freely and widely as you can. No mercy for any profit margins backed by (state or not) violence.

[BitMos]

Please, understand that I have decided to appropriate myself the rights granted by copyrights, in the attribution to myself to the patent of fire. yes, simply that. following this dire legal fact, all of you will have to pay me 1% of your income (because today I am nice, but tomorrow it could be 20%), I hope you will agree, otherwise I would come with the "cops" to take your asset directly (it would be less nice).

This guy gets it.

the best and most efficient way to finish copyright holder is to not buy from them. it's a pause, but to breath you have to pause. . think of that like the winter of growth.

I'd so go one step further, once you have the information they are trying to own, distribute it as freely and widely as you can. No mercy for any profit margins backed by (state or not) violence.

thank you, what a compliment, but I could be a girl, or an AI... who knows...

About entertainers, how could they live without income, and thus produce the entertainment I like? winter is harsh.

the people that are very funny are those having copyrights on weapons... hoooww childish.

[jaysabi]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

[CIYAM]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

[Beliathon]

About entertainers, how could they live without income, and thus produce the entertainment I like?

Entertainers survived and thrived for thousands of years before the word "copyright" was ever uttered.

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor

So you don't support capitalism, I take it? After all, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of workers are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. They are expected to accept a tiny fraction of the profits generated by that labor, or fuck off and starve.

It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights

Reality check, it's up to whomever commands the monopoly on coercive force and violence. In this case, the nation state. You have no rights, you have privileges granted to you by your masters. These can be revoked at any time. If you don't believe me, google internment camps WW2.

[jaysabi]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

What does "reverse your statement" mean?

The point of working in a field is to make a living, and publication is necessary to monetize your work if you make "artistic" products. Publication does not forfeit your property rights.

Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system.

[CIYAM]

Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system.

But this "non-system" has been working in countries such as China for many, many years.

Maybe time to "re-think" your idea of the system?

[Wilikon]

Can someone open source her wife or his husband and children? Put them on kickstarter for crowd sourcing.

Copyright was not a big deal before because taking a real concept from somebody was physically hard. You could not simply google image photos and then claim as yours like those people

But keeping something secret for fear of being stolen or copied is older the concept of copyrighting. Way older.

We should find a way to make copyright laws evolve with our times, maybe what maidsafe is doing,  instead of destroying everything because of abuse of the law.

Most people who call for the demise of any form of property law are not creative minds or artists, so they don't really care one way or the other.

[jaysabi]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor

So you don't support capitalism, I take it? After all, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of workers are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. They are expected to accept a tiny fraction of the profits generated by that labor, or fuck off and starve.

It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights

Reality check, it's up to whomever commands the monopoly on coercive force and violence. In this case, the nation state. You have no rights, you have privileges granted to you by your masters. These can be revoked at any time. If you don't believe me, google internment camps WW2.

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't. It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment. If you want to keep the fruits of your entire labor, go into business for yourself. What you do by agreeing to take a job is sell your labor to someone who pays you for it, so you have already entered an agreement not to own the product of your labor. Ostensibly, whoever is paying you for it can make more off your labor than you could if you were to try to sell whatever it is you were making yourself. That's how you both benefit from an employment arrangement. There's nothing forced about that, and these voluntary employment arrangements have nothing to do with the state's monopoly on force.

[Wilikon]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

Obviously. It is your fault if you expose your art to talentless thugs.

 

[jaysabi]

Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system.

But this "non-system" has been working in countries such as China for many, many years.

Maybe time to "re-think" your idea of the system?

China, a bastion of freedom and liberty... and home to the largest black market on the planet. That's right, people claiming ownership of stolen copyrighted work for the purpose of selling that work. Not to mention a horrendous track record on tangible and real property rights. Somehow, I don't think it works nearly as well as you believe it does. I'll stick with my predictable ability to enforce my property rights, thanks.

[Wilikon]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

http://creativecommons.org/


What is your take on it?

[BitMos]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

a big up to all the forums leeches.

[jaysabi]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

a big up to all the forums leeches.

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain what that means in relation to what you quoted?

[BitMos]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

a big up to all the forums leeches.

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain what that means in relation to what you quoted?

all of it. example: did you ever see a studies from a "reputable" academic institution quote the forums where they found the core of their theory. me never, they called that trash talk, why? they can't control it, so it must be downplayed.

[Beliathon]

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't.

Of course I don't, I loathe violence and capitalism could not exist without systemic violence, not even for a single day.

It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment.

There is nothing voluntary about employment so long as non-employment means starvation and homelessness for the vast majority of workers.

If everyone started out on equal financial footing at birth, you might have an argument. Since we don't, and since only the privileged few can afford to start their own business (repeatedly as needed since 8 out of 10 fail), your argument has no merit.

[BitMos]

as long as the ctrl+p rules the day, there is no fair competition in financial endeavors. Fair competition is better, fair by natural, meaning the best to fit reality wins it (like in real warfare). if love and financial warfare are impossible waht's left? remember kids, it's only other kid that can tolerate a cheating banker at monopoly... try to cheat a game of monopoly before Julius gaius ceasar.... goodddd llluuuckkk with the lions/crocodiles/what ever... you deserve it... like cheating in poker in the old whole wild west... feather and glue, and ride my donkey.

[jaysabi]

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't.

Of course I don't, I loathe violence and capitalism could not exist without systemic violence.

It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment.

There is nothing voluntary about employment so long as non-employment means starvation and homelessness for the vast majority of workers.

If everyone started out on equal financial footing at birth, you might have an argument. Since we don't, and since only the privileged few can afford to start their own business (repeatedly as needed since 8 out of 10 fail), your argument has no merit.

I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all. Crony capitalism, in which special interests pay for the use of force by the government to enact their will, is neither voluntary nor capitalism. The fact that you see so much crony capitalism is not proof of failure of a voluntary system, it's evidence the government shouldn't be granted the power to interject in the market place to create winners and losers.

Non-employment doesn't mean starvation and homelessness. Non-productivity, on the other hand, does. You can be unemployed and productive, in which you create things the market desires, and are compensated accordingly (keeping the whole fruits of your labor). But your inability to make a living on your own is evidence of you not producing anything the market desires. That's no one else's fault or burden, best to sell your labor at that point to someone who can produce something of value with it where you can't. I don't know what your particular problem is, but I can start a business with ease, it's neither expensive or difficult. I just have nothing to create the market would desire, so I'm better off selling my labor to someone who can use it to create something of value. No one forces you to work, but no one owes you anything either when you don't.

[BitMos]

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't.

Of course I don't, I loathe violence and capitalism could not exist without systemic violence.

It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment.

There is nothing voluntary about employment so long as non-employment means starvation and homelessness for the vast majority of workers.

If everyone started out on equal financial footing at birth, you might have an argument. Since we don't, and since only the privileged few can afford to start their own business (repeatedly as needed since 8 out of 10 fail), your argument has no merit.

I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all. Crony capitalism, in which special interests pay for the use of force by the government to enact their will, is neither voluntary nor capitalism. The fact that you see so much crony capitalism is not proof of failure of a voluntary system, it's evidence the government shouldn't be granted the power to interject in the market place to create winners and losers.

Non-employment doesn't mean starvation and homelessness. Non-productivity, on the other hand, does. You can be unemployed and productive, in which you create things the market desires, and are compensated accordingly (keeping the whole fruits of your labor). But your inability to make a living on your own is evidence of you not producing anything the market desires. That's no one else's fault or burden, best to sell your labor at that point to someone who can produce something of value with it where you can't. I don't know what your particular problem is, but I can start a business with ease, it's neither expensive or difficult. I just have nothing to create the market would desire, so I'm better off selling my labor to someone who can use it to create something of value. No one forces you to work, but no one owes you anything either when you don't.

if you play monopoly with friends and some of your friends get money from the bank (FOR FREE, LIKE IN CHEATING), do you continue to play? if yes you are an idiot. accept it, it doesn't mean you can't love right. hf.

[Beliathon]

I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all.

I see you are a true believer in the mythical sort of capitalism that has only ever existed in your imagination. The violence-free capitalist utopia. I read a lot about this capitalism on internet forums, yet strangely I have never read an account of it existing in history.

Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today. Capitalism makes much more sense in 1700 than it does in 2015, because violence is becoming less and less legitimate.

[Wilikon]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

http://creativecommons.org/


What is your take on it?

I guess no one here has ever heard of creative commons?

[BitMos]

yes I love it, bitcoin, tor, Linux, p2p, games, music, images, knowledge... all good... only fucking masson would dream to create corporation that would make knowledge a privilege and not a gift, to exploit those unknowing (and if it ain't the "neo masson" who cares, those privatizing knowledge and science are doomed, because of the law of war, long life bf).

[runpaint]

Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today.

Wow, from what you're saying apparently capitalism has drastically decreased the violence in the world.  Thanks for sharing what capitalism means to you.

[BitMos]

Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today.

Wow, from what you're saying apparently capitalism has drastically decreased the violence in the world.  Thanks for sharing what capitalism means to you.

who cares most monkey don't have the intellectual output ot understand usury (even if in negative rates for now...).

[Beliathon]

Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today.

Wow, from what you're saying apparently capitalism has drastically decreased the violence in the world.  Thanks for sharing what capitalism means to you.

Reason and ethics have compelled our civilization to beome less violent in spite of capitalism, the nation-state, and religion. Not because of them.

[runpaint]

capitalism could not exist without systemic violence

The opposite is true - capitalism is the only kind of economy that can exist without systemic violence.

Communism and socialism require government control backed by government violence.  Under anarchy, or the absence of any government, the only possible economy would be a free market. 

Since you argue against our freedom to keep the results of our own production, you are in favor of someone using violence to take it from us.

[runpaint]

Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today.

Wow, from what you're saying apparently capitalism has drastically decreased the violence in the world.  Thanks for sharing what capitalism means to you.

Reason and ethics have compelled our civilization to beome less violent in spite of capitalism, the nation-state, and religion. Not because of them.

Then maybe we could be lucky enough to have some examples where people got rid of capitalism, the nation-state, and religion.  Any examples come to mind?  Ringing any bells?  Can you think of a time where people overthrew their government and established a society free of religion and capitalism? 

North Korea, the USSR, Cuba, China?  Did any of those experience a decrease in violence when they eliminated your main culprits? 

[Beliathon]

Then maybe we could be lucky enough to have some examples where people got rid of capitalism, the nation-state, and religion.  Any examples come to mind?  Ringing any bells?  Can you think of a time where people overthrew their government and established a society free of religion and capitalism?  

"It never happened in the past, therefore it can never happen in the future"

Your logic is dangerously shallow. Your arguments suck capitalist balls, homeslice. It was only 150 years ago that privileged fuckwits were using similar arguments to defend slavery.

[BitMos]

capitalism could not exist without systemic violence

The opposite is true - capitalism is the only kind of economy that can exist without systemic violence.

Communism and socialism require government control backed by government violence.  Under anarchy, or the absence of any government, the only possible economy would be a free market. 

Since you argue against our freedom to keep the results of our own production, you are in favor of someone using violence to take it from us.

TODAY CAPITALISM IS THE MOST VIOLENT FORM OF LIFE IN ALL GALAXIES. if you can' t get why, I don't care. Cronyism is a form of genocide, in love their is no genocide. their is no love, enjoy TW. ie total warfare, in full spectrum not definied by piker of the usmiic, but by Life it self. all segment, all spheres, nothing but pain, enjoy what you wanted to do to "like me" . I rejoice, not because of a success assured, but because you have no hope., first. the hope then it's easy to make it long (hell). you played, you pay... and who ever comes next, sorry I didn't force you, you wouldn't want that for yours... so why for me? I get it, I am not from yours... perfect I didn't want it, what ever you had is nothing compared to what the first saw... I don't even speak of Who made... beyond you. no sorry no m. ahaah. (no laugh but tears, but as it must be so, let be it).

[Beliathon]

TODAY CAPITALISM IS THE MOST VIOLENT FORM OF LIFE IN ALL GALAXIES. if you can' t get why, I don't care. Cronyism is a form of genocide, in love their is no genocide.

You may enjoy a new book called Capitalism: A Structural Genocide. I just started reading it so I can't write a review, but there's a pretty good one here:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16887-the-structural-genocide-that-is-capitalism#

[jaysabi]

I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all.

I see you are a true believer in the mythical sort of capitalism that has only ever existed in your imagination. The violence-free capitalist utopia. I read a lot about this capitalism on internet forums, yet strangely I have never read an account of it existing in history.

Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today. Capitalism makes much more sense in 1700 than it does in 2015, because violence is becoming less and less legitimate.

Sorry I don't buy into your anti-capitalist excuse to use force on the unwilling. Do let me know if you ever come up with a viable alternative that is less violent than one based on voluntary exchange. I'll be waiting with bated breathe. [/s]

[runpaint]

Your logic is dangerously shallow.

And you have no logic at all.  You make claims, such as "capitalism causes violence".  Where is your evidence, or any reason at all, to support your assertions?

I have provided examples of your ideas not working, and your only answer is "Just because my ideas have never worked before doesn't mean they couldn't work in the future."  Yes, and they could also result in the same widespread death and destruction they've always caused before.

You want to gamble the lives of billions of people on these ideas - it would be bad enough if your ideas were unproven, but they're not unproven.  They're proven to be wrong. 

[Beliathon]

Sorry I don't buy into your anti-capitalist excuse to use force on the unwilling.

What are you thoughts on using force to deny a hungry person from eating?

You make claims, such as "capitalism causes violence".  Where is your evidence, or any reason at all, to support your assertions?

The evidence is all around you, you need only remove the mental blindfold the state has given you. We both know that no argument, no amount of evidence I provide here will change your mind. Still, for the benefit of others I will leave these here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

For a basic introduction to the systemic violence of capitalism, I highly recommend Zinn's "A people's history of the United States" and John Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education", the latter of which you can read free here.

[runpaint]

You make claims, such as "capitalism causes violence".  Where is your evidence, or any reason at all, to support your assertions?

The evidence is all around you, you need only remove the mental blindfold the state has given you.

But what if you're wrong, and the evidence is all around you, and you need only remove the mental blindfold your indoctrination has given you?

Then we would need to check with other things besides "evidence that I can't see".  So, it would be more like real examples that we can both see, like the USSR and North Korea.

[Beliathon]

But what if you're wrong

I'm not.

...like the USSR and North Korea.

Maybe you missed the memo, but the USSR dissolved 25 years ago. And do you seriously not recognize that both Russia and NK (and every other sovereign nation on Earth) have capitalism in 2015? This isn't 1960.

I'll grant you that North Korea is a special kind of fucked up for reasons I won't get into here, but they're still practicing capitalism... poorly.

[runpaint]

Maybe you missed the memo, but the USSR dissolved 25 years ago.

But that's impossible, according to you.  Because you said any other system would be superior to capitalism, and you're not wrong.  Therefore, the USSR is now the most prosperous nation in history.

Meanwhile, in the real world, you're wrong.

[Beliathon]

Maybe you missed the memo, but the USSR dissolved 25 years ago.

But that's impossible, according to you.  Because you said any other system would be superior to capitalism, and you're not wrong.

Try reading my words again, this time with comprehension. I said any future system would be superior to capitalism by necessity, while any past system would be just as bad as capitalism (or worse, such as feudalism or outright slavery).

[runpaint]

Try reading my words again, this time with comprehension. I said any future system would be superior to capitalism by necessity, while any past system would be just as bad as capitalism (or worse, such as feudalism or outright slavery).

Here are your words again:

Capitalism wastes food on an industrial scale. Whatever comes after will by necessity be much more efficient at resource distribution.

Whatever comes after capitalism will have to be better, because capitalism is the worst.  That's what they said before every communist revolution, and they were always wrong, and you are just as wrong.

any future system would be superior to capitalism by necessity, while any past system would be just as bad as capitalism (or worse, such as feudalism or outright slavery).

So everything will always be bad, and worse upon the next day's reflection, while nothing will ever be as good as tomorrow, which will never come.  Brilliant.

[Beliathon]

Whatever comes after capitalism will have to be better, because capitalism is the worst.  

Not because capitalism is the worst, although it is pretty awful. But because civilization socially evolves over time. Barbarism -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> whatever comes next.

I have absolutely no doubt that our grandchildren will inhabit a kinder, more compassionate world than we do. Barring any apocalypse scenario.

[CIYAM]

I think the "discussion" about capitalism should probably belong in another topic.

And I do think that creative-commons is a great example of progress in the right direction.

In regards to "branding" there are plenty of obvious fake coffee shops in China whose store names are a lot like those of famous western chains. From my perspective the key thing is "the coffee" (and the free WiFi) so assuming they have good coffee and decent WiFi I don't really care if they are "the genuine article".

[Beliathon]

I think the "discussion" about capitalism should probably belong in another topic.

Hell no, we hijacked this thread fair and square. You cannot simply steal it back from us!

Also capitalism sucks the cheese from a goat's ballsack.

[CIYAM]

Hell no, we hijacked this thread fair and square. You cannot simply steal it back from us!

I do have a reputation for locking topics that I started that run amok - but if you can entertain me then "let the show begin".

[runpaint]

I think the "discussion" about capitalism should probably belong in another topic.

You're the one who started the topic with a call to take away our personal property rights.

I do have a reputation for locking topics that I started

Yes, most communists are totalitarians, and they take away free speech as soon as they get any power.  Maybe you can't take away my rights yet, but you can sure force me to stop talking!  That'll show me!   

[CIYAM]

You're the one who started the topic with a call to take away our personal property rights.

Hmm... good attempt at trolling perhaps but not really very interesting.

[Beliathon]

Yes, most communists are totalitarians, and they take away free speech as soon as they get any power.  Maybe you can't take away my rights yet, but you can sure force me to stop talking!  That'll show me!  

Conveniently ignoring the fact that our capitalist corporate elite have been fighting tooth and nail to debase the internet for the last decade..

[CIYAM]

Yes, most communists are totalitarians, and they take away free speech as soon as they get any power.  Maybe you can't take away my rights yet, but you can sure force me to stop talking!  That'll show me!  

Now I am being accused of being a communist and a totalitarian - I guess this is just because I happen to live in China?

(you are almost amusing me now)

[Btcvilla]

Yes, most communists are totalitarians, and they take away free speech as soon as they get any power.  Maybe you can't take away my rights yet, but you can sure force me to stop talking!  That'll show me!  

Now I am being accused of being a communist and a totalitarian - I guess this is just because I happen to live in China?

(you are almost amusing me now)

Don't feed the trolls..... Just ingore them and get back on topic.

Hopefully copyright and patents will change in the next few years.

[CIYAM]

Hopefully copyright and patents will change in the next few years.

To get back on topic - unfortunately I seriously doubt that as those who "own this property" are ever going to give that up (and I am not advocating to "take their property from them" as some seem to think).

I think our best hope is for things like creative commons, open source and blockchains that simply "don't care" about such antiquated ideas (i.e. they can hold on to Mikey Mouse to the bitter end but eventually a new character will replace it that isn't *owned* by anyone).

[ObscureBean]

That's very naive thinking. You obviously haven't delved deep enough with your analysis else you would understand that relinquishing control has to happen on all levels for it to mean anything at all. Everything around you has been built using control.

[CIYAM]

That's very naive thinking. You obviously haven't delved deep enough with your analysis else you would understand that relinquishing control has to happen on all levels for it to mean anything at all. Everything around you has been built using control.

Calling someone naive and offering zero analysis yourself just shows you made that post for your "sig money" rather than for any other reason.