Liberals worried: Bitcoins, think tanks and the Koch brothers

[muh_roads]

www.anarchyonline.com is an mmorpg game and I was a player in it when members started selling credits online. The credits were selling 100m credits for $19.00 and it maintained that price for quite a long while, this idea that any new commodity on the market has to be volatile is just that, an idea.

The reason why it did was because people actually had demand for it before it was used as money, bitcoins was never valuable to anyone before it was used for money.

ermahgerd, lol. Stop the retardation. I can't take it anymore... fuckity fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck, look at frosty fuck. fuckity fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck, over the hills of fuck.ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffuck

Stop comparing an encrypted open-source Agorist payment processor to a video game currency. Jesus Fucking Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

[juleswin]

ermahgerd, lol. Stop the retardation. I can't take it anymore... fuckity fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck, look at frosty fuck. fuckity fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck, over the hills of fuck.ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffuck

Stop comparing an encrypted open-source Agorist payment processor to a video game currency. Jesus Fucking Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Laugh all you want, anarchy online credits actually does something for consumers i.e. it was some utility aka intrinsic value to players. It saves you hours of grinding and camping in front on your computer. What can a bitcoin do for me outside its use as money?

 

[muh_roads]

Laugh all you want, anarchy online credits actually does something for consumers i.e. it was some utility aka intrinsic value to players. It saves you hours of grinding and camping in front on your computer. What can a bitcoin do for me outside its use as money?

Whut? Hold and you can get more anarchy credits when it bubbles again.

 

[osan]

Didn't happen with Anarchy online credit price. Bitcoin is having this unique problem because it was never used as a commodity before it was granted money status. That is why the market is having a hard time finding its center

GRANTED?

By whom?

By what authority?

One of the fundamental characteristics of bit coins is that the individual as a player in the market is the arbiter of "money status". Given this, the bolded text makes little sense, unless you simply endeavor to belabor the obvious.

 

[juleswin]

GRANTED?

By whom?

By what authority?

One of the fundamental characteristics of bit coins is that the individual as a player in the market is the arbiter of "money status". Given this, the bolded text makes little sense, unless you simply endeavor to belabor the obvious.

By cunning business men/women. What authority? none. Smart people over the years have figured out that governments are not the only scammer in the game. The folks behind bitcoins created a currency out of nothingness and are going to make millions (or even billions depending on how many investors they can recruit) from it.

To further clarify what I mean by the bolded statement, Tatoshi (god I hate saying that name) created this program with the intention of creating a new currency. That is essentially what I mean by "granted"

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Your definition of "individual rights" apparently doesn't include copyright protection, since you published an entire Muckety post here without permission.

Muckety is a free site which welcomes links and provides interactive maps for embedding on other web sites. But what you did is theft, not to mention just plain lazy.

Thought it was the liberals who lived off others' work.

It was not theft, and free discussion of it in the public domain is not "living off of others' work." Libertarians object to the mischaracterization of a local and temporary government enforced subsidy to publishers (the historical understanding and use of copyright) as a permanent and global "individual right" to the exclusion of other people's rights. A one way system of 'property rights,' where only the original distributors get to say they "own" something while defaming all others who exchange the ideas as thieves, does not honor property rights at all.

 

[angelatc]

It was not theft, and free discussion of it in the public domain is not "living off of others' work." Libertarians object to the mischaracterization of a local and temporary government enforced subsidy to publishers (the historical understanding and use of copyright) as a permanent and global "individual right" to the exclusion of other people's rights. A one way system of 'property rights,' where only the original distributors get to say they "own" something while defaming all others who exchange the ideas as thieves, does not honor property rights at all.

Yes, it was theft. Frank copy and pasted the whole article, instead of just posting a teaser with a link.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Yes, it was theft. Frank copy and pasted the whole article, instead of just posting a teaser with a link.

No, he gave the link, an attribution to the original. He did not attribute it to himself. It's no more theft than is sharing physical copies of an article for discussion purposes. This is obvious. What is this world coming to, when I find myself defending Frank?

 

[angelatc]

No, he gave the link, an attribution to the original. He did not attribute it to himself. It's no more theft than is sharing physical copies of an article for discussion purposes. This is obvious. What is this world coming to, when I find myself defending Frank?

The courts disagree with you. Take it up with them.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

SOME of the courts disagree with the truth, as well as the entire history of copyright, and in any case do not have international jurisdiction. Bad case law does not settle the matter.

 

[Muckety]

What you see now has been edited by the moderator. (My thanks to the forum moderators and to the user who suggested I contact them.) The original post quoted our article in its entirety. That wasn't a sharing of ideas. It was freeloading.

I suppose it's easier to slough this off when you don't write for a living. But articles are our work product just as much as a piece of furniture is a woodmaker's, or a sculpture is an artist's. It takes us hours to gather the info and write the piece, we've also spent significant amounts of our own money on technology and our web site. That technology - along with databases we've compiled over the past seven years - was used to assemble the story that was republished on this forum without permission or payment.

The concept that information wants to be free is fine (within limits), when you're talking about ideas. When you're talking about verbatim reuse, it's theft pure and simple.

 

[FrankRep]

What you see now has been edited by the moderator.

Only a small portion of the article is displayed with a link to your website.

You're getting free traffic from this website so why are you complaining?

 

[Muckety]

See above.

 

[angelatc]

SOME of the courts disagree with the truth, as well as the entire history of copyright, and in any case do not have international jurisdiction. Bad case law does not settle the matter.

The Constitution settles the matter.

The Congress shall have the power to..

.To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Congress has the power to decide how long authors retain the exclusive right to their products. Clearly then, such a right exists.

 

[angelatc]

Only a small portion of the article is displayed with a link to your website.

You're getting free traffic from this website so why are you complaining?

You posted the whole article - the moderator changed it for him. That's why he was complaining.

We need to remember who the enemy is, to quote a certain popular book/movie series. This guy isn't the enemy.

 

[FrankRep]

You posted the whole article - the moderator changed it for him. That's why he was complaining.

We need to remember who the enemy is, to quote a certain popular book/movie series. This guy isn't the enemy.

The issue is now fixed. Why is Muckety still bitching?

 

[angelatc]

The issue is now fixed. Why is Muckety still bitching?

He's having a go-round with the anti-IP crowd, I believe.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The Constitution settles the matter.

The Congress shall have the power to..

Congress has the power to decide how long authors retain the exclusive right to their products. Clearly then, such a right exists.

My objection was not over the existence of copyright, but over the overreach of its application, that eclipses the free rights of others. Defaming the fair use of information for discussion purposes as "theft" is obnoxious (neither ownership nor commercial value is damaged by full sharing of the material in that context). Claiming that the publisher's exercise of temporary control over commercial distribution means that nobody else has any rights regarding personal usage, including sharing it in a clearly non-commercial public discussion, is ridiculous. The latter is not what the Constitution, or traditional copyright was trying to prevent.

 

[angelatc]

My objection was not over the existence of copyright, but over the overreach. Defaming the fair use of information for discussion purposes as "theft" is obnoxious (neither ownership nor commercial value is damaged by full sharing of the material in that context). Claiming that the publisher's exercise of temporary control over commercial distribution means that nobody else has any rights regarding personal usage, including sharing it in a clearly non-commercial public discussion, is ridiculous. The latter is not what the Constitution, or traditional copyright was trying to prevent.

So you don't think they meant "exclusive right" when they said "exclusive right?"

And I also disagree that the commercial value is not damaged. Putting the whole article here means nobody clicks through to the website, and on the internet, traffic equates to value.

But that's not relevant - he doesn't lose the right to his work even if he never intends to make any money off it.

 

[dannno]

What you see now has been edited by the moderator. (My thanks to the forum moderators and to the user who suggested I contact them.) The original post quoted our article in its entirety. That wasn't a sharing of ideas. It was freeloading.

I suppose it's easier to slough this off when you don't write for a living. But articles are our work product just as much as a piece of furniture is a woodmaker's, or a sculpture is an artist's. It takes us hours to gather the info and write the piece, we've also spent significant amounts of our own money on technology and our web site. That technology - along with databases we've compiled over the past seven years - was used to assemble the story that was republished on this forum without permission or payment.

The concept that information wants to be free is fine (within limits), when you're talking about ideas. When you're talking about verbatim reuse, it's theft pure and simple.

Oh bologna, Frank was PUBLICIZING your website, everything he did was of benefit to you. He could have just not posted anything and then nobody would have read the article on your site at all, Frank gains NOTHING by posting this article except some minor reputation among members here.

Your website will likely fail not because the content is poor but because you are going around telling people not to read the content on your website.

If you kept writing and producing pieces like the one in the OP and people noticed that these good articles were coming from your site, they may begin actually visiting your website on a regular basis. Do you think Drudge and Huffington Post got big by going around telling people not to post stories on their website, or did so many people post stories from their website that people actually started visiting them on a semi-regular basis?