Comments by "Juzu Juzu" (@juzujuzu4555) on "RMS Says Stop Saying Adblock, BSD Style, Closed and More" video.

The older and wiser I have got ( I'm in my 40s) the more I understand how important words are for creating reality. Even something that feels insignificant can actually be quite important. I absolutely think creator is not the same as author, even if you are complete atheist it still changes how you feel. It's hard to describe shortly, but it creates bigger meaning on the words chosen by the author. For example, if you have read a story, and now you have a daycare business where you tell that story to young children, if you think someone is the creator of that work, then you more likely think that you are infringing his rights vs. that you think the writer as author. It's quite hidden difference, but it's there. And there are still lots of religious people who feel even more towards that word subconsciously. RMS's explanation wasn't clear on this, and it really is hard to explain, but I think he is right. Also I think digital goods is a bad word. If someone has a service that delivers bluray quality videos over the net, the copying part doesn't increase the cost from using the computer at idle, the cost comes from everything else. It would be the equivalent of ordering sea water. That water is free, the pumping takes tiny amount of electricity, but delivering is pretty much 100% of the cost. Perhaps another analogy would be to think private teachers, the knowledge is essentially free, but you are paying on the time of the teacher. This is important subject that needs more talking. For example if we pay for Spotify, we are not paying for the artists, Spotify only pays peanuts for the artists. While not the best analogy, it's like you would order your private teacher from service company, and then most of what you pay for your teacher would go to that service provider. Source code, especially when it's compiled, is like mathematical formulas. There should be no protection for mathematical formulas. IP protection should end the second you start selling your product. Corporate espionage etc. obviously should be illegal. You could sell your product only to people who sign a contract, and in that case your product would never become public. But it wouldn't solve much. We have been brainwashed to think this would hinder development and R&D, but the opposite would be the truth, now things would evolve like open source software does. And think about what would the level of software be if there wouldn't be copyright laws. And also one important thing, while there wouldn't be IP protection, there would be trademark protection, no one could have your trademark or trademark that could be mistakenly thought as yours. That's the key why good honest companies can always charge more, and why there would be lots and lots of customers that would happily pay much more. The more complex your product (thus the more you have put R&D in it) the more it's value comes from the corporate processes that cannot be seen from the product itself. For example, if people would reverse engineer your product, they still don't know how to manufacture the same product, and how to do it cost effective, and what methods of development you use, what internal process tech you have. And there's always the possibility of co-operation and alliances. To understand why this sort of economy would be better is complex, but the TL:DR is that there's no artificial blocks for development or artificially inflated prices, profits would spread among more companies, and thus there would be larger customer space and better opportunities for making money, though for a shorter term per innovation. Changing our current world to this "no IP protection" overnight might cause lots of problems, but doing it slowly wouldn't. Let alone if there wouldn't have been IP protection in the first place.
7
@boscovallejo-nagera6073 I don't know about RMS's talk, however that's the huge issue with cryptocurrency. It really only benefits the tiny amount of normies who jumped in early, and already rich people who can avoid taxing. To create viable crypto as a currency, it would need to be created like fiat currency among all the people who participate creating the network, otherwise it's just fiat currency without possibility for taxation (if you can buy that specific crypto from normal money). One of the worst fears I have is that elites create "solution for all the debt problems" by creating crypto as the official monetary standard, obviously their own crypto that can be controlled, which tracks people etc. I truly hope that there would be some great innovations that help to create crypto that could actually be used as currency, and which doesn't need to be mined or the mining process would be very different.
2
@martinkunev9911 From the point of west there is also the notion that the most people rich countries in the world really don't give a damn about IP protection. Thus they rape and pillage these IPs while western companies are held under different rules and thus they cannot compete. And this is on purpose. Couple companies on the IT sector who had absolutely the single best tech on the planet and all the patents on those techs, were forced to go in bankrupt as the main owners of the mother company didn't do jack shit when China just robbed that tech to themselves. Still they had the all the researchers and upcoming even better tech, but global banking elites forced that company to go to bankrupt as they increased the interest rate for their loans from 15% to in the 80% range. That was absolutely against the laws here, completely destroying the most fundamental laws.. But every single court level rubber stamped that illegal act, even though it destroyed IT sector in this country. These true leaders who run the shadow governments have chosen to raise CCP into stratosphere and phuck western people.
1