Topic: Why is it so hard to regulate Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 2953 times)

This is a false dichotomy. Artists can profit well from merchandise, asking for voluntary payments like NIN and Radio head successfully accomplished(earning more than with a record label), creating custom productions for movies/advertisements, and touring.


Yes, when I script a site or develop code for a company they own the material and I cannot continue to rent seek. My time to create their custom solution is well compensated as a sunk initial cost. 



There have been some great games crowd funded that have been wildly successful.  Companies can also choose to monetize off of merchandising, in game purchases, and advertising as many already do.

Arnoald is an idiot. Without art and all the great artists we have had, our world would be much different today. Everything in life plays a role, every job in society plays a role and if it were taken out, society would crumble.

*taken out, not replaced btw.

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

BTC is the first true global economy tool as it has no allegiance to any government therefore no one government or body can force BTC (or its users) to do anything...

I think you see this issue completely in black and white. I understand that you would like to see all ideas be free and not owned by anyone but what you don't get is that true free markets can and should protect intellectual property as well as allow to the freedom to distribute ideas. It's a tough concept to grasp because it does contradict itself but what I am describing is neither moral or immoral. It is a completely gray area
Furthermore you are using hyperbole to prove your point with an unrealistic (and very literal) interpretation of copyright.

Atlas Shrugged describes a world in which the ideas owned by intellectuals and entrepreneurs are hijacked by the government in order to solve a global economic crisis. They acted on the idea that these ideas and properties should be available for everyone. So what happens in the book? The smartest and most talented people in the world leave because they have no reason to produce anything for a world that would rather take than receive.

That is nonsense. I actually feel dumber for reading that.

If you want to know where it ends, I have the answer. It lies with the creator of the product. If they choose to require payment for the work they have done then that is their choice. Under your logic, if they only were paid once for their contributions then they would ultimately stop producing anything substantial in the future. Capitalism drives progress whether you like it or not, but it can also drive greed as well. It is up to the property owner to decide if they want to distribute their ideas for free or require payment. In conclusion, it is simply their right to ask for payment.


I suggest (and this is purely a suggestion) that you become more acquainted with the ideas and principles behind free markets because at this point you fundamentally disagree with the very essence of Bitcoin itself.

One more thing. Before you go on and say Bitcoin proves your point, I'm going to tell you that you are wrong. Satoshi choose to make Bitcoin open source and let his idea free. If he had chosen to patent Bitcoin and keep it closed source then we would not be having this conversation right now, but Satoshi would likely be an extremely wealthy man after selling his patent to a bank. Again, it was his choice. You don't have the right to take it from him; he has the right to give it away and that is why you are wrong.

I returned two $200 laser printers to the store after they tried to impose conditions after sale.

The first was a Lexmark. They had printed a "patent license" on the box claiming that I did not own the print-cartridge and had to return it to the manufacturer after a single use.

The second was a relatively entry-level HP multifunction printer. It is was "dumb" printer that does not work without proprietary drivers. The EULA said I was not allowed to install the software on more than one machine: for a network printer.

Stop and ask yourself why anybody would agree to such terms?

I also find your use of the word "digital" troubling. If it can be easily copied (per definition: that is the purpose of digitization), you want to be able to charge for every copy? I suppose copying VHS tapes and old audio cassettes are fine simply because the information is analog.

I agree there are real world parameters and limitations,
appropriateness, and reasonableness that can be considered.

There is for example, the "fair use doctrine" which
is part of copyright law.

Context is the key, as always.

(But I still believe in the basic principles that I profess.)

Jonald.

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

Have you ever read a newspaper that you didn't buy or listened to music you didn't buy - did you turn yourself in for doing so?

As I said initially, where does it all end?

No, I do not pay the plumber every time I use the toilet
because that was never our agreement.  I paid him to
fix it once, and he did. 

What in the world does that have to do with someone
creating a digital publication and selling it to many people?

They are 2 different things.  One is selling a service,
the other is selling a digital item.

In both cases, however, there is an agreement between
buyer and seller, and no one is forcing anyone to
do anything.

The plumber won't fix the toilet unless I agree to pay
him his $75.  And I won't pay him his $75 unless he
fixes the toilet.

If I publish, say, an ebook, the offer is that you can
buy a copy of it for $20 knowing full well other people
are doing the same.  If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Again, no one is forcing anyone to do anything...

That's how the free market works.

If you don't believe in the free market,
then that's your right.

But if you decide to download my ebook off some torrent
site even though I didn't give you permission, I would
consider it stealing... I would consider it defrauding
me because you can just as well pay the $20 like
everyone else is doing, and if you don't like the price
I set for it, please don't read it.

Do you pay the plumber every time you use the toilet?
Do you pay the electrician every time you flip a light switch?
Do you pay your car manufacturer every time you fill it up with gas? (Yes, that is a real example.)
Edit: Just to get it back on topic: Do you pay your bank every time you make a payment?

Governments can certainly hinder and slow its progress. But completely stop they cannot.

The only points I see that you raised in this post are:

1. why create special rules for artists and musicians?

2. artists and musicians should do it as a hobby , not a profession

3. JK Rolling is a billionaire.

to that , I say:

1.  no special rules are needed -- I think anyone should be
allowed to create a digital publication of any kind and copyright it.

2. No, disagree... they should be allowed to do it professionally if the market supports it
as i just got done explaining...

3. so what?  if true, then he earned it.  why does that bother you?

Artists do not live in total isolation. They draw on the culture around them.

The short-fiction story Melancholy Elephants explores the consequences of taking copyright to it's logical conclusion.
 

Saying I sound jealous is just a way to avoid answering the legitimate points that have been raised.

Yes, rewarded for their effort and not some superimposed fancy legal wording that can impose an offence on someone for reading and listening.

We are watching you Mr jonald. We are watching you.

If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else. 

It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace, and that they will be
rewarded for their effort.

Yes, clearly your proposal threatened the fungibility of Bitcoin, an essential property
of currency... So it was rejected for very good reason.

Indeed, Bitcoin is most likely parallel currency for a while.

I'm one of the authors of the paper mentioned in that Wired article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5440).
Clearly the Bitcoin community rejected our proposal, it took even 9 hours for my pull request to be closed.

That's fine, I love Bitcoin. The key question is now how could millions of normal people start getting into Bitcoin?
Bitcoin ATM machine's legal in EU and US require photo-ID registration.
So #2, Bitcoin without a photo ID registration is illegal today in EU+US.

Option #3 means only tech savy people will get into it. It poses insurmountably high barriers for large-scale uptake.

The article, AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, by N. Stephan Kinsella makes a strong case that intellectual property should be abolished.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.

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

Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?