101–110 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could something like Namecoin address these concerns? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin
Most definitely. You are talking about the dot-bit DNS project in particular. See here for more details: http://dot-bit.org
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im going to try to keep it short, but its hard given the many different topic you touched on. Any company that solely depend on government granted monopolies for their businesses model will have a hard time to claim a moral high ground or demand that the sovereign of foreign countries should be violated. The business model I would suggest is one that do not solely depend on government grants. That would likely be to…
Can you suggest a business not dependent on government grants? As far as I can tell, every business in the world is. Any form of property rights is a government granted monopoly. The only natural law is "If I'm bigger than you, I'll take what I want". No matter what business you're in, you're relying on government protection to stop me just smacking you on the head and taking your stuff, whether it's tangible physica…
No. The internet has rendered the "taking your stuff" part obsolete. When you "take my stuff" I no longer have "my stuff". However when you "copy my bits" I still have "my bits". It is the essential difference between Property and Intellectual not-actually-Property.
* Sealand - proposed only (2007)
* Netherlands - hosting (2009?)
* Sweden - domain only? (Feb 2012)
* North Korea - elaborate hoax (Mar 2013)
* Greenland - domain only, quickly switched back (Apr 2013)Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im going to try to keep it short, but its hard given the many different topic you touched on. Any company that solely depend on government granted monopolies for their businesses model will have a hard time to claim a moral high ground or demand that the sovereign of foreign countries should be violated. The business model I would suggest is one that do not solely depend on government grants. That would likely be to…
> Any company that solely depend on government granted monopolies for their businesses model will have a hard time to claim a moral high ground or demand that the sovereign of foreign countries should be violated. All forms of property are a government granted monopoly. God doesn't give you a monopoly over your lawn or the things you create with your hands, Uncle Sam does.
Copyright, trademark, patents, etc., are different; they were not considered natural rights, but are a social engineering effort, attempting to produce specific effects in society ("the progress of science and the useful arts", e.g.) by means of government-subsidized policy.
As an analogy, consider another government-granted monopoly, say taxi medallions. They're quite valuable in some markets. But they're entirely an artificial right, created by the city for the city's own reasons, not an inherent one.
Or on the opposite side, consider e.g. liberty or free speech. In the American or liberal conception, those are innate, inalienable rights. We create a government that hopefully helps us exercise those rights, but the rights inhere directly in us--- they are not granted by the government or some other third party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government doesn't own it, but it enforces the right that you own it. Both for physical goods in the obvious way, and IP via the way of copyright.
Except that the notion of property ownership predates written records and organized government. Copyright was started in the 17th century to address the failure of previous censorship efforts in a world of new technology (the printing press), and eventually became a means by which printers could secure a competitive advantage. We now live in a world where the machines needed to copy things are commonly owned by indiv…
Does this strike you as being even remotely analogous to the situation faced by the people who make television, movies, books, and music?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you suggest a business not dependent on government grants? As far as I can tell, every business in the world is. Any form of property rights is a government granted monopoly. The only natural law is "If I'm bigger than you, I'll take what I want". No matter what business you're in, you're relying on government protection to stop me just smacking you on the head and taking your stuff, whether it's tangible physica…
"They only difference here is that the internet has rendered the head smacking part obsolete for IP, so people can skip straight to taking the stuff." No. The internet has rendered the "taking your stuff" part obsolete. When you "take my stuff" I no longer have "my stuff". However when you "copy my bits" I still have "my bits". It is the essential difference between Property and Intellectual not-actually-Property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%28economics%29
Many things are in this category, not just IP. Paying for them can be kind of tricky, because who wants to spend a year, say, writing a book when someone decides they can just go ahead and copy it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
IP has been a pretty good, if imperfect solution to the problem. Those wishing to be rid of it ought to either try and suggest another way of producing information goods, or be honest enough to say they have no idea and that information goods that require substantial time and effort may not be produced in large quantities in their imagined future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you start a startup, you're totally fine if I take your code, your logo, your copyrights, and your name and create a copycat site and take your customers? You're okay with that? If so, please send me the details so I can keep an eye on you. Anyone else who's so inclined, reply as well. I'd love to grab a few zero-effort passive income generators.
Conflating trademarks and copyrights is not going to help us come to a rational agreement on the appropriate nature of either one. There's also a considerable difference between commercial and personal infringement. I support the use of trademarks to prevent consumer confusion; I don't support the abuse of trademarks (e.g. to attempt to suppress commentary, comparison, or criticism). I also support short-term copyrig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conflating trademarks and copyrights is not going to help us come to a rational agreement on the appropriate nature of either one. There's also a considerable difference between commercial and personal infringement. I support the use of trademarks to prevent consumer confusion; I don't support the abuse of trademarks (e.g. to attempt to suppress commentary, comparison, or criticism). I also support short-term copyrig…
I think yours is a fair position (probably because it's close to my own:-). You are not rejecting the idea of IP as a compromise to encourage the production of goods that otherwise might not be created, you're just in favor of reining things in a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not really sure it's bullying per se, to try and stop the mass illegal downloading of your content. It's not like they've got thugs at the door, they're just trying to shut down a site who's sole purpose is enabling the illegal downloading, and who has no interest in co-operating with even nicely worded, fair requests. I'm not a great fan of the entertainment industry, but if people were doing this to YC startups…
Im going to try to keep it short, but its hard given the many different topic you touched on. Any company that solely depend on government granted monopolies for their businesses model will have a hard time to claim a moral high ground or demand that the sovereign of foreign countries should be violated. The business model I would suggest is one that do not solely depend on government grants. That would likely be to…
Literally every business that relies on any kind of stock, real estate, or other form of property depends on the government for the security of that property. Yes, their survival depends - in part - on providing a decent product or service at an acceptable price, but it also depends on having the backing of a state that can inflict serious, life-changing harm on the Takers who have no regard for reciprocity, who will simply grab whatever they want with no recompense whatsoever, and who will continue doing so until they are physically thrown in jail.
These people aren't a majority. Heck, they aren't even a significant minority. But they're common enough to make the difference between profit and loss in any remotely competitive business.
Anarcho-libertarians are loath to admit this, but civilization depends of putting these people behind bars, along with the murderers, rapists, kidnappers, forgers, fruadsters, and other thugs who cannot suppress their own desires reliably enough to behave with decency and reciprocity.
A respectable country will do everything it can to limit incarceration to those who pose genuine, active threats to the persons and property of others. It will not subject them to cruel or unusual punishment that goes beyond their removal from the free population. And it will do whatever is possible to rehabilitate them so they they can become functioning members of society.
But make no mistake - it will throw those fuckers into jail without remorse if they decide to steal instead of deal. In a country ruled by law, businesses can count on this protection. Indeed, it's what they bank on, which is why well-governed countries tend to be far more prosperous than those that tolerate pernicious criminality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you suggest a business not dependent on government grants? As far as I can tell, every business in the world is. Any form of property rights is a government granted monopoly. The only natural law is "If I'm bigger than you, I'll take what I want". No matter what business you're in, you're relying on government protection to stop me just smacking you on the head and taking your stuff, whether it's tangible physica…
"They only difference here is that the internet has rendered the head smacking part obsolete for IP, so people can skip straight to taking the stuff." No. The internet has rendered the "taking your stuff" part obsolete. When you "take my stuff" I no longer have "my stuff". However when you "copy my bits" I still have "my bits". It is the essential difference between Property and Intellectual not-actually-Property.
You make a copy, you own me money. You decide to keep that money instead, and it's the moral equivalent of reneging on a debt or bouncing a check.