Topic: Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 2953 times)

yeah right. we can not predict what will happen to bitcoin in the future, maybe he would be very valuable or even no value at all and then disappeared. who knows

You don't have to bribe the state.   Its just a filing fee.   Anyone can afford to file a patent,  trademark or copyright.

I know for certain in USA trademarks are on first use basis.   You just have to prove you used it first. Its different for other countries though.   For patents its a little more complex since there are a lot of similar inventions.

In any case 1 to 1 contract makes no sense.   Intellectual property only works if it covers the entire market.  

We disagree probably because you prob don't have to deal w these issues in your business.    If you had a good idea that you put a lot of investment to make it fruitful,  you'd want protection from copycats.   Its not just the idea though - its everything but only some things can be property.

Mickey Mouse is not just a cartoon mouse.   It has a long history w a lot of marketing and business behind it to make the image ubiquitous and part of our cultural language.  Thats why it has value and why people license the trademark to sell products.   Thats why its more valuable than Jerry Mouse or Speedy Gonzales

Obviously information age its easy to torrent movies and download MP3. Doesn't mean copyright laws are futile.   If anything the business models might adapt to the market.   

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

I see whats going on here... you are just reading into my comment to interpret "an idea of a cartoon mouse"
as "all versions of ideas of cartoon mouses" instead of one version of an idea of a cartoon mouse that if you come close to it you will get sued by team of lawyers. I apologize about the confusion and will try and elaborate in more detail. One range of versions of ideas of a cartoon mouse as detailed in a book , song, game, ect would be what I was referring to. You are using a very narrow definition of idea and I am using a broader definition of that term.

Yes, I am specifically claiming that it is unethical for an individual or legal fiction to bribe a state for exclusive monopoly to an idea whether it is represented as a copyright, patent , or trademark.

I am perfectly fine with people or groups getting together and voluntarily drawing up contracts that say they will respect each others IP but forced IP laws that are regulated with kidnapping and torture is unethical.

Either of our opinions don't matter much outside of a philosophical discussion as mathematics, distributed computing,  and human behavior will insure that copyright law which is enforced by the monopolistic violence of the state is futile and a losing battle regardless.

 

What strawmanning?   I'm disputing what you wrote about "idea of a cartoon mouse"

"Mickey Mouse" is a specific trademark.   Like "Iron Man", "Hello Kitty", etc..

You cannot patent,  copyright,  or trademark "an idea of a cartoon mouse".

It should be common sense as I can think of many cartoon mice in existence not owned by Disney

Im not even trying to argue w you unless you think there should be no intellectual property laws

You are the one that brought up trademarks. Personally, I don't have that big of a problem with trademarks as they serve a purpose in representing an idea that identifies a product or service which is useful for branding in business. (I am still not suggesting that non-consenting individuals should be harmed(outside of social stigmatization) if they don't agree to recognize trademarks however)

How about actually disputing my comments directly instead of straw manning my position?

Disney extended copyright on the Mickey Mouse movies.   The Mickey Mouse trademark is indefinite.   

Its not a monopoly on "idea of a cartoon mouse".  I don't have time to explain the difference to you.

I own 2 trademarks and I make money licensing them so I know about trademarks.

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

Disney owns many trademarks, patents and copyrights.

Patents now can be owned by legal fictions, llc, and corporations as assets with an assignee.

Mickey mouse is not just a trademark but protected under copyright law as well. (movies, songs, books, games)
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 is AKA  Mickey Mouse Protection Act specifically for this reason as Disney was one of the main reasons for the continued extension of copyright law.

Trademarks, copyrights, patents are all "ideas" in one form or another.

You cleary don't understand how IP laws work

Patents protect individual inventors so large corporations don't steal their ideas.

Mickey Mouse is a trademark not "idea of a cartoon mouse".  Trademarks don't enter public domain

Firstly, the ends don't justify the means(Violating the NAP).

Secondly, those copyright protection rackets often are hypocrites and take from others and the public domain freely while suing those that try and do the same.

Thirdly, it is stiffing for a company or person to have a monopoly on an idea because they payed off the state to give them a short 20 year monopoly, no35, no I they meant 42 , no 55?, oh wait it should be 75, hmmm... lets use 120years for corporations now.... basically, whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public Domain they will have lobbyists pay off the right politicians to insure their monopoly on the "idea of a cartoon mouse".

Lastly, Ideas and thoughts aren't as unique as patents and copyrights make them out to seem. Just because you thought your jingle with the words "Ohhhhh, baby I love the way you dance..." is unique, shouldn't give you the right to force others to recognize that you own that idea. There are only so many note and keyword combinations that intrinsically make sense and sound good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

Open source doctrine works great for the digital age but it does not apply to everything in life. It would not be a sustainable or practical system if every idea or product were not subjected to IP rights.
We see plenty of examples for why open ideas are good but that does not mean it works everywhere. This is a mind set that works particularly well with the digital age.

IP laws protect the rights of the creator from having their ideas copied and sold without compensation. But as I said previously, it ultimately comes down to the IP originator to determine whether they want to require payment or not.


Just because you wrote some code for a company that you work for does not mean you are entitled to the profits of every copy of that software. You assume a consistent paycheck and wage when you sign a contract. Unless that contract gives you rights to a profit sharing program then you don't have the ability nor the moral authority to reap the profits of the software you developed for your employer. It is common sense really and I'm surprised some people can't figure this out.

However if you are on your own and you develop software independently as Satoshi did then it is your choice to do what you want with it.

That is the nastiest, most ignorant thing anyone has said to me on these forums yet. Congrats.

My access to food and shelter - indeed my very survival - depends upon access to money, just like anyone else. I despise capitalism - it disgusts me because it requires violence, but I've been engaging with it my entire life because abandoning all my loved ones is not a real option at all.

You are basically saying that because I dislike capitalism, I don't deserve to live in a world dominated by capitalism (and the violence it entails).

So, should I just kill myself then? Leave it all behind? Don't think I haven't thought about it. One does not come to be possessed by such overwhelming misanthropy without considering all possible "exit strategies" from the system which causes one to suffer.

copyright doesnt stifle innovation.. it just means you have to not be lazy/greedy. and to atleast ask the original owner for permission to copy their property, and to agree on a percentage profit share of the new creation/copy.

basically if you cant create something fresh and new, and you need to use someone elses talent, they deserve a slice of the pie too

IP  laws are crucial.   Its not just songs,  books,  software and movies.

Trademarks also fall under this category.   Seeing all the fake pirated stuff coming out of China.   People have died because unknowingly using fake car parts

your rules so lets play with them.

i want you to design me a chip and give me the first chip as a sample.

.....

great now i can reverse-engineer the chip and make as many copies as i like.. because you said copies should be free.

thank you

Agreed, on SaaS; that is fine and fair.

I still enjoy plenty of talented local musicians who don't need a record label or to make a few pennies per album sold. I don't think that copyright has necessarily brought better art into existence and one could even make a case that such regulation stifles creativity and innovation.

I'll give you one quick example of how copyright stifles innovation - Mash-up artist girltalk is limited to using very small samples for fear of lawsuits which in my opinion makes the tracks have a somewhat schizophrenic composition.

it isn't hard at all.

There is much less good music being created these days because there is less incentive and opportunity
to be a professional musician.

And SaaS is becoming much prevelant versus commercial software you can own.

So those are some of the consequences of digitization of information.

What should be considered reasonable is people should be free to peacefully make contract and trade with one another without institutionalized violence and coercion.

Music, art, writing , and code are all forms of speech. Most of which is not unique and borrowed from others and the environment.

I have no problem with 2 people or a group agreeing upon a contract where they respect each others intellectual property voluntarily. Custom code and work I create for clients I don't re-use out of respect for them and future goodwill by default because they paid me for such a creation.

What is unethical is for a fascistic monopoly using violence to impose those same restrictions upon these ideas and forms of speech against the population as a whole without their consent.

Not only is it unethical but impractical and futile. Whether it is Bitcoin, Speech, or digital forms of art, Pandora's box has been opened and the nature of reality and technology make regulating such entities impossible. Even strong copyright advocates usually have "copyright-infringed"(Not using theft or piracy as those are inaccurate and misleading terms) movies, software, and music in their possession.

 

Creative work will continue to be produced with or without Copyright regulations.

Studies have shown that file sharers who copy music actually purchase 30 % more music than ones who don't routinely break copyright law. (this doesn't even include all of the extra money they spend on merchandise and concerts either)

http://piracy.americanassembly.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AA-Research-Note-Infringement-and-Enforcement-November-2011.pdf


When Radiohead and NIN released their open- source and free albums I was happy to donate to them as compensation and many others did as well. This model was more profitable than releasing their album with a record label.