Comments by "Juzu Juzu" (@juzujuzu4555) on "I Will Not Watch These Linux YouTubers" video.

Intellectual Property has made it sure that China has robbed the west. Countries that don't follow regulations can evolve really fast and this allows incremental development of tech and benefits for the whole economy of that country. Using the power of governments to block people/companies from using ideas is certainly not the optimal way. Changing to society that doesn't do that is hard though. But using threat of violence, and violence to block people using ideas is horrible way of doing things. How would society without intellectual properties work is too complex issue to talk here. But couple things are certain, it wouldn't stop R&D. It would change a lot of things, and many areas would grow in smaller increments, but there would be more players that contribute to overall R&D level. And it would save huge amount of redundant R&D.
3
@AkamiChannel These are certainly not unrelated things, though debt crisis is much more complicated thing of course and stems for the use of fiat money. But it's too lengthy and complicated topic for sure, these types of discussions should be had face to face.
2
@AkamiChannel Yes, IP is enforced in the US and that hurts it's ability to compete. The biggest corporations become bigger, and their owners will get richer. But because we can't enforce IP laws in China etc. they are reaping all the benefits and growing in ridiculous rate. China was 3rd world country not long ago. And if this rate goes on, western countries are phucked. I supported my argument enough. Using the threat of violence and governmental force to block people for using ideas certainly doesn't improve economy, at least not the wealth and happiness of majority of the people. The only way IP protection makes sense if not doing so would make R&D level in society much smaller and also at the same time that enforcing IP could be done effectively. Both are false and have always been false. But especially now after globalization. How to change to society where IP protection is no more. That's much harder question. Though it would have to be done slowly and with coordination.
1
@davidgomez79 I'm not extreme, I have just thought about things for decades and I have to follow logic. We certainly need regulations. As you said, bad regulations are harmful, but we must prevent scamming etc. and we sure need oversight over corporations. We need regulations to limit corporations using their power in a way that benefits them but not the society at large. IP protection is government acting as agency that does the opposite. It gives power to corporations, and it benefits them but hurt the society at large. In many ways this is the same as FOSS vs. proprietary software. Though there are also differences. One would think IP protection helps R&D, but the more you think about it, and actually think about society that would have lived without IP protection since the industrial revolution. Would that society be more competitive or less? To me the answer is obvious now, but before I studied economics and really spent time thinking about the question in this paragraph, I though IP protection is a must.
1
@davidgomez79 I get that this is hard topic to grasp quickly. I absolutely don't think the world Us well meaning. That is exactly why we don't need IP protection, because the bad people/countries are not following those laws anyway. You can't own ideas. You can use violence to stop others, but that's about it. And I certainly don't feel entitled to the fruits of labor of others, using violence to stop others from having that idea is just not the best way to create wealth. Try to figure out what kind of society USA might be if there would have never been IP protection, how differently companies would have handled R&D, would this have made the country develop faster, more robust or not? IP protection really doesn't give nearly as much protection as people think. For small starting companies there's usually no sense to even spend money on patents.
1
@davidgomez79 What I'm talking about is absolutely 100% not socialism, it's the opposite of that actually. Though it would lead to more evenly distributed wealth as there would be more evenly sized companies. It's pure capitalism. But it's so complex topic that having that discussion in Youtube comment section is doomed.
1
@davidgomez79 Privacy should be protected for all cost. If you sell your wifes photo or make it public, then anyone can make a copy of it. The reality of IP protection is so far from the common idealist illusion that people have. Also the importance of IPs are far less than people think. Most of the edge comes from knowledge that can't be copied from the product that you sell. Everyone are benefiting from things that others have invented. And you can benefit and earn without IP protection, if your IP is so easily copied that someone can instantly create similar quality product, then your IP was not worth shit. Microsoft is great example of a company that stole tons of IPs from others and grew empire out of it. I'm not trying to say we should remove IP protection immediately. That would create chaos. But think about what would have happened in capitalist west if there hasn't been IP protection, starting from the industrial revolution. At what point our economic growth would have halted and why? I'm certain that IP protection slows things down. But in any case, I'm pro free market (with regulations that keep power in the hands of people and not in the hands of corporations), I hate socialism because it just can't work, I'm 100% pro privacy and my opinion is based on what I think would lead to the best possible world.
1
@davidgomez79 I'm not advocating wealth redistribution. I said that no IP protection would lead to more even wealth distribution because it would increase the value of work more, and more people could compete and not artificially limited out because someone patented some shit. It seems that you don't seem to read or understand my comments and instead read things that I didn't say or mean. The point I have tried to make the whole time is that IP protection is oppression. You can't own ideas. Protection IP with violence is wealth redistribution in reality. Once you sell your product, that product is public and any idea that anyone got from that product should be free from them to use. I can buy CPU but that sure as hell doesn't help me to build one. And it's the same with any IP that has had lots of efforts put into it.
1
@davidgomez79 What I'm saying has nothing to do with charity. Nothing. If you sell me something and I have ideas based on that product, then you shouldn't have monopoly rights toward that idea. You however have all the knowledge on how that was designed, how that was made, and all the business processes that allows you to bring that product on the market. The key here is that we can't change society that has been built based on these IP protection laws to society where we don't have those. As the society where we never had IP protection would have developed into different kind of society. But that would be more free, and more developed. But I'm done with this debate, as it's too frustrating.
1
@davidgomez79 Trademarks would certainly be protected, as that's essentially the signature of the company and thus you can't counterfeit that no more than you can counterfeit one's signature. Without trademarks it would certainly be chaos. Those are more important than IP to most companies even today. Also I think certain areas should be protected, like medicine. All laws are essentially violence, but there are lots of things where "violence by law" is the smallest form of harm by far.
1
@davidgomez79 "Having an authoritarian government that forces them to share" OF COURSE we don't want government to force sharing, nor do we want government that uses threat of violence to block people away from ideas. On things like algorithms, mathematics, science, that should be so obvious. But the exact same applies to all ideas. If you are bringing something to the public, it's not protected by privacy anymore. Then that idea is public, and current method of using force to stop people and companies using those ideas are horrible. It's not about forcing to share, it's about not using force to block ideas that can't be owned. Corporate espionage would still be crime though. It just that if you bring some product to the market, it becomes public. But everything else on that corporation is private and thus gets protected through protection of privacy.
1
@AkamiChannel China is far from de facto capitalist country. But I get what you mean and that's part of the story. However coming from country producing absolute garbage to country that is close at the bleeding edge of technology, for example being the 2nd best country at semiconductor manufacturing, getting ahead of Intel and GloFo. These things certainly didn't happen because they played by the rules. And you are correct, they started from zero. Which proves my point exactly. When it comes to China, west has just given up all IP protection and let China rob everything. For example, Nokia once was the nr1 at mobile phones, leading at manufacturing techniques etc. by far. For some reason they dumbed all this knowledge into China and allowed them to take all this knowledge and essentially rob the patent pool. This has been coordinated thing by those in power, and I'm talking about the real power.
1
@davidgomez79 As I said, corporate espionage is a crime, just like any violation of privacy. The problem with software is that simple reverse engineering always allows you to know the methods. And it also allows you to crack software protection. Proprietary model just doesn't work with software. Software patents are like patenting math, pure violence. On most high tech products though the real value is in the manufacturing secrets, design processes and other internal corporational knowledge.
1
@davidgomez79 We should have a system that creates the best possible outcome. China's thefts are mostly corporate espionage though, and that would still be criminal. You can't rob math and ideas from publicly sold products. I'm not being entitled, but you sure are childish.
1
@davidgomez79 Law itself is violence as it only works if it's ultimately enforced by violence. AKA if police comes to take your property because you have been sentenced for fines, and you defend your property, then you will ultimately get shot. Unless you stop defending your property. That's why we should really be careful about the laws we pass. In many cases the threat of "violence by law" leads to the lowest amount of harm, and in those cases laws are working the way they should. But using that to give the use of math exclusively to someone is certainly not the wise thing to do. Nor any other ideas that one might get from publicly traded products.
1
@AkamiChannel Of course Taiwan is the best at making semiconductors, but it's mostly due to US involvement actually. But China has already 7nm process. Something that Intel or GloFo even cannot achieve while having five decades of history.
1
@AkamiChannel So why does western world need to prevent western competitors from using the same ideas? They don't. But using IP protection in the west while not being allowed to achieve that among China and other similar countries really have huge impact in the long run. Statistics already show what has happened, and it's brutal for the west. We are on the brink of collapsing under debts and we have almost no edge anymore. USA is still doing good, or the US based global giants are doing good. But Europe has been devastated by China robbing IPs and causing European companies to go bankrupt or otherwise out of business. And this is by design.
1
@davidgomez79 IP protection is essentially the same as preventing to use math. On algorithms it's 100% that. On other ideas it's essentially the same thing with just more complex ways. Ideas are not property. If you cannot have competitive edge by no other means than preventing others to use ideas from your publicly traded product, then you doesn't deserve success. But I'm done talking about this, and now for good.
1
Windows is easiest only because pretty much everyone already knows it. User friendly Linux distros are easier. Windows just has more software. Also if you really leverage Linux's power, then it takes a long time to learn. Simple example: My 70y mother uses Linux for browsing, Youtube etc. other Internet videos, and Libreoffice. No problems for years. With Windows there were constantly something I had to fix or help with.
1