Topic: Intellectual property in the blockchain (Read 1615 times)

It's kinda like rock 'n' roll. Rock and roll gave the people who didn't have any talent a chance. So, let the people who can't recognize talent, fight over the non-talent that they are after.

The hackers are the ones who make the money here. But that's okay, because those who can't tell that what they are after isn't talent anyway, don't really have any good use for money.

Copying information gets easier and easier. The only methods they have for preventing the distribution of copies is by destroying mediums of distribution. i.e coerce youtube into removing uploads of the data. But they can't stop decentralised storage solutions such as p2p networks. Torrents are as stoppable as the blockchain. Breaking this requires damaging the internet in a severe fashion.

edit: embedded encryption to the point of actual effectiveness can often result in compromising the data itself.

Cloning videos may be impossible but do you think their system can really stop someone from benefiting from another person's work. Just see all the flipping, timing, mirroring tricks they use to get films onto YouTube.

I'll keep that in mind before I start to publish my "crap manifesto".

I agree with you about Ayn Rand's stuff. Hitler, however, was rather interesting, and rather comical, before he became nasty.

The reason you call it crap is that your crap isn't nearly as good as theirs.

If a person or company has a method of absolute control over what is intellectually contrived or developed, then they have to learn to soften those controls somewhat if they want to make profit. If they doesn't soften the controls, someone else will develop something else, and then release with softer controls.

Some of the things that I think, that I think are great thoughts, I never repeat to anyone else. What's the difference if I release to a few who I NEVER give the ability to release to others?

I think we are talking about two different things here. There is a difference between the person who simply wants to keep a monopoly on his own property, and the one who wants to monopolize the whole Internet to do it.

Until the point that people become total slaves, freedom will always arise. This will include both, methods to keep things like the Internet free, and methods to keep a monopoly on one's own intellectual property. And both are right.

The person who wants to make money off his intellectual property, will have to release it. The person who wants to make MORE money off HIS intellectual property will have to release it more freely. The whole thing is self-regulating.

When the pirates get too ugly (as they seem to have) new ways of encryption and use will come about.

Look at it this way. Suppose I come out wit a new song. And the only way you can listen to my song is if you have a special headset that only works when it is attached to you, and will not allow any overhearing by any other person who stands near you, and will not allow any copying by any other electronic device in any manner. Will you buy my equipment just to get my song? If the market happens to go this way, then it does. Personally, I'm not even interested in hearing your song, with or without your special equipment.

Seriously I wasted at least a week of my life reading that ridiculous book "Atlas Shrugged" (which I was warned not to bother to read and I realised later for very good reason).

I think only Adolf Hitler could have written a less interesting book (but I am not going to bother to compare).

Anyone who believes that sort of crap is probably also convinced that aliens are here and that no-one ever landed on the moon.

You are certainly welcome to start such a topic again.

Well, of course, a lot of the time. But the corporations have learned selfishness the Ayn Rand way. This is the selfishness that says to be selfless in action so that others will think it is selflessness, and turn and give to you. Walmart and Target praise their people because the people will automatically accept the praise rather than a raise.

Many corporations have what is termed "idea people," just so that they can create new ideas, if only ideas that will benefit the running of the company. Besides this, there are many companies looking to create new ideas all the time, just to cash in on those ideas. Look at DuPont.

^^^ another "ad sig" post adding no value to anything.

Can you start a discusion on wha is the really value of Bitcoin instead of the none stable price ;
We can imagine that people who didn't know bitcoin really hate it because they think they will
just think they loose in any time because of price crash

I don't hold it against them, my beef is with a dogma that wants to censor the internet.

Also, if you download my album for free and hate it and never send me any money I have no problem with that.

If you download my album for free and like it and never send me any money, and you have some, I don't understand how you think I'll be able to continue making anything. $0.20 might be enough because all the middle men have been cut out of the equation.

If you download it for free and like it and do send money, then that makes the most sense out of the options available to you, assuming you want to hear more like it.

If you buy it on iTunes, congrats you just made apple richer and who knows, maybe some of that money will eventually make it to me. However if you did this because you "like to support artists" please be aware that you do so in a very awkward way that is not as effective as it could be and supports a lot of unnecessary bloat surrounding the creative process.

Distribution was once a major thing, now with music and film, distribution is almost free.

Certainly I am not promoting anyone to publish things that others want to "protect" from publication (even if I think the entire concept is stupid - breaking laws is not at all what I am about).

My hope is that we move to a new paradigm where trying to "make money from IP" is just so old fashioned it looks ridiculous (like trying to make money out of WiFi service in China is as it is free nearly everywhere here).

I did it myself btw (most of the software I have worked on since 2001 is now open source - only the parts that commercial companies won't release are not included).

Well, you kinda said that; I quoted it without alteration. In any event, if you're walking back from that sentiment, then I would think that anyone who is in the "industry" of the big media companies is there because they want to be compensated for their work, and the copyright is a legal means to enforce against people who value their work enough to consume it, but don't think they should have to pay for it. That's not a voluntary exchange.

Anyone who wants to release their music/writing/art for the public is free to do so outside the industry. Opensource projects are fantastic, primarily because there is no profit motive (ostensibly) and anyone can take and use the code/source material. Artists can do the same thing by releasing under the creative commons license. Jonathon Coulton is one musician in particular I like who has become quite successful doing this (former coder too, btw). But I don't hold it against anyone who doesn't opt to do so. It's a choice.

It's a tricky thing when you try and tie commercialism and artistry together.

It works well with "craft" (so we get great new special effects or a great soundtrack for the latest movie) but it doesn't work with "real art" such as the "Piss Christ" (you might need to look that one up) or "Cloaca" (an even more challenging work).

Can you see any major corporation sponsoring such works of art?

Of course not.

Careful. I'm not saying they shouldn't be rich, or rewarded financially or otherwise for their work. I'm just not in agreement with the copyright cartel's opinion that they MUST be. And that we must do whatever we can, including butchering our first global, un-cenosorable communications medium to salvage every last penny.

I have donated to everyone who has created something I approved of (that has made it possible for me to do so!) mozilla, tor, wikimedia etc. The libertarian would say (and I did earlier) that I like what they do (and I consider writing good code to be art) and wish them to continue. If I give them money, they are much more likely to continue!

This is the part where it starts to lose me. It seems a lot of support for anti-IP sentiment is rooted in the fact that someone's individual subjective conclusion is that someone who wrote that book or created that [insert any artistic item] in [whatever artistic medium] doesn't deserve to be "rich." Just because you personally don't find the value in something doesn't mean the entire market should share your sentiment, and in fact, in cases where someone is rich because of their work, it means the market in fact doesn't at all share your personal sentiment. I find the IP and patent system we currently have to be grossly abusive and anti-innovation, but patents and copyrights do have their place in a more limited setting, and copyright protection for artists is essential. I don't support the entire scrapping of the system, and I definitely don't support any argument against the system that is predicated on someone's personal opinion that popular artists don't deserve what they earn for creating things millions of people value, or that artists owe the world their work for free. For me, an artistic copyright is a legal means to enforce an artist's right to their personal property against anyone who would take it without the artist's permission. A just world is predicated on voluntary exchange, voluntary payment for what the individual creates, with their labor or mind or whatever. It's not voluntary exchange if you don't have permission to take their work, and therefore it's not just.

At least, that's how I view it from a libertarian-leaning perspective. I guess this applies more to copyrights than patents.

ok den :|

I'll respond later.

Rubbish - as I said the most "important art" was only recognised well after the creator had died.

How does that work with your idea?

(it doesn't - it might only resonate in the future which you can't know now)

True artists "don't compromise" which is exactly why they are generally not recognised while they are alive.

Most people will have to compromise to fit in with the accepted norms of their society. What suits the majority collectively alienates the majority privately. This is why good art can be controversial and still resonate with a large amount of people.