Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

harmful.cat-v.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–132 of 132 posts

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#131

Post by gnaritas »

adsr wrote: post #130
gnaritas wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still being ignorant or you're just really dense, in either case, I have no interest in continuing a conversation with someone who continually almost intentionally misses the point.

I'm providing arguments, all you are able to do at this point is to insult. Pathetic.

You're refusing to acknowledge the difference between intellectual property and physical property, something that everyone, including the law, acknowledges are different. That's not an argument, that's ignorance. As I already said earlier when you pulled this, goodbye.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#132

Post by FrojoS »

andrewflnr wrote: post #126
FrojoS wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does sound like an interesting model. Producers would, I suppose, initially have to establish their reputations by releasing things for free. Yes. One thing that would worry me: a lot of people would have to be involved in getting a piece to a point where it could be sold. How would it be protected while all these people are looking at it and working on it? Based on trust, just like today. How is this different…

> Based on trust, just like today. How is this different from how music, books, games etc. are produced now? Currently, if someone violates your trust, by releasing their own version of a song you wrote, for example, you can sue them. It's not clear to me that this would be the case in a copyright-free world. You would have to explicitly have to make a contract with everyone who ever comes in contact with your work b…

No, I didn't quite understand that model. So if there is any large-scale physical production, say printing books or burning CD's, that will be handled by third parties and the artist won't have anything to do with it? And people who want the physical form will have to pay two parties?

Whats wrong about paying two parties? Actually, most people would never pay the first party, because the work is already released. And the profit margin for the second party (publisher) would be small at best. First, because there will be a lot of competition and second because information delivery is almost free today.

Why burn CD's in 2011? Download the mp3's and play them wherever you want. Since I have a Kindle, I don't really want printed books anymore either. I also printed a lot of free books at the local copy shop in the past.

The problem with trust, I believe is not a bigger one than it is today. It should actually be smaller. Where is the problem if I paid someone over kickstarter.com to do XYZ and then XYZ gets published by some bad guy earlier than planed?

Post reply on HN