pantaril
Wow, so if bitcoin is or isn't pyramid scheme depends on your assumption when you buy it? That's a new one. Than i guess I'm safe because i bought it to buy goods with it, never expected that price will soar so much.
This is simply not true. In my experience, only the most mainstream content is available legally on portals like itunes or netflix. If you want to watch something more rare (art film, old foreign film, film with subtitles in different language) you can try to buy very expensive DVD+shipping and wait few weeks for it to arrive or you have to use illegal sources.
I wonder what is so bad about two men kissing? Would man and woman kissing spur same reaction? Or are there any anti-homosexual propaganda laws in USA similar to Russia?
I agree but i think that current copyright is on the wrong side of the "fence".
It's even worse, copyright is regulated by international treaties[1]. Every time someone comes up with an idea to reform copyright, shorten the terms etc. it's immediately shot down by the argument that we are bound by those agreegments and cannot change anything ourselves.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internationa...
He is talking about figuring out another way for creators to monetize their media without artificial restrictions on sharing/copying. He doesn't want to take away money from creators, just the copyright. And i couldn't agree more with this idea.
Too bad they (and other phone manufacturers) don't protect phone calls with some kind of end-to-end encryption.
If i had so many bitcoins as Satoshi Nakamoto i would certainly not store them in my basement. I'd split my private key using n:m scheme and store them in secure deposit boxes in banks.
This problem can be solved in distributed system using bitcoin-like proof of work scheme. If two parts of the network disagree, the bigger part is considered right. Namecoin project is trying to implement distributed DNS using this technique - http://namecoin.info/ .
I've been thinking about this myself. What i found out is that current copyright law is terrible for preservation of our culture because it makes attempts to archive, share, backup or digitalize abandoned games, music or movies illegal before their copyright expires, at which time, most of them would be probably lost foreever.
The law students worked on this for months for free and the paten troll got away without any fee. I don't see what's so brilliant about it. Looks like shity system to me.
No, i think that quote makes it clear that bitcoin was released in staunch opposition to centralized currency, where some authority (central bank) can issue new units of currency at will and devalue the currency for everyone.
Sure, sharing intelectual property should be OK even if you make money on it.
My experience is diametraly different. Legal sources like netflix, TV or some DVD's are usualy low quality, cenzored and cropped versions, terribly dubbed with no original audio or subtitles. On the other hand, i have usually no problem finding pirated copy which has none of these issues.
The attitude of content creators is quite schizophrenic. On one hand, they want to spread their work as far as possible, on the other hand, they want to limit access to it. The source of this stance is of course their business model often based on copyright law which links the financial reward of the author with the artificialy created copying limitations. Replace this with some other model where content creators reward is not depended on the number of copies sold or on number of page hits, but rather on some more rational measure like the amount of time and effort put into the creation itself, on the popularity/reputation of the creator and quality of his previous works. Then, this 'copying is stealing and stealing is bad' attitude disappears because i believe that no sane author would realy object against spreading of his works.
On the other hand, the apple store is complete joke. IDK how anyone can use a store where such basic application like bitcoin wallet is missing.
Fuck YOU and current copyright. By running megaupload/mega Kim Dotcom did nothing wrong. He created service for sharing information, that is a good thing. The artificial limitations copyright imposes on usage of our technologies is retarded.
So yes, there is actual bitcoin transaction going on if you don't have coinbase account.
Megaupload and pirates in general don't steal content from anyone. They create their own copies of publicly available content. I don't understand why digital data should be treated differently then physical objects. It's like calling a carpenter, who creates a copy of some furniture that he likes and sell it, a thief. On the other hand, proponents of copyright are seriously hampering the right of everyone to use publicly available information around us for our creative efforts. This seriously limits our creative potential because it's not like creative works are created out of thin air, they are always derived from our past experiences which influenced us in some way. The proponents of copyright are standing on the shoulders of giants but they don't want anyone to further build upon their work. p.s.: before someone accuses me that i don't want creators to be paid fairly for their work - i think that some regulation is necessary which would ensure promotion of fine arts but this regulation cannot be based on artificial limits on distribution of public knowledge/culture.
There is also an idea to use proof of work to estabilish network-wide consensus about valid certificates (like bitcoin or namecoin blockchain). This would be fully decentralised solution.
I don't know if it is common for u.s. army to kill people without targeting them but if it is the case they should better learn how to aim.
I cited from the article that $50000 is required to hire lawyer and fill the required paperwork to defend the case. As i said i'm not from U.S. so i don't know if it is actualy true.
I could probably give you another example... if i'm not mistaken there is very high rate of cases in U.S. which end with some kind of settlement without ever getting to the trial. Often fears of financial expenses play a big role in those settlements which seems hardly fair to me.
I gues this is how it should work in any modern country with working juridical system. Unfortunately it seems to me (note that i'm not from USA) that in U.S., justice is available only to the rich and/or powerfull.
From the article: "Perhaps not coincidentally, $50,000 is just about what it costs to hire a lawyer and file the initial set of paperwork to defend a patent case"