delete all IP law
Login to reply
Replies (116)
Do you read your comments, Jack?
Thank you.
I mean, friggin THANK YOU.
Copyright can be returned to contract law, where it belongs.
Patents are a perverse twisting of reality
Open source Cash App
That's a good one
Buy I like human readable addresses!
nevent1qqswqf5s29urcqevmhftjrq8appu43laq38e5hv9zgprgpdv37tg4nst53lmr
No se puede copiar un UTXO.
Gracias Satoshi 😉
Do you hold IP?
Jack didn’t stutter
When ideas flow freely, value grows exponentially.
Bitcoin has no patent
Nostr has no gatekeepers
And open code builds unbreakable culture
" [...] intellectual property is a State based
haven of the weak, the stupid, and those lacking confidence in their own ability."
A law that is harder to implement than deceive is a non law anyways ..
Open source fixes it !
Ideas cannot manifest if research is not profitable.
LOL. There is no competition. I have already won. 👑 I have created a brand new orbit rendering anything that seeks to intercept or block *my* God given path obsolete. If you step to me I already know you are defeated. I don’t compete, especially for what’s already mine. I attract & create.💋🦁💋
I just know you are not talking about competing with freaking Communist China like we’re not already inundated with fake Gucci and knock offs goods galore. Removing IP laws grants China even more leverage.😫
~Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~Sun Tzu
I was responding to this.
“Speed & execution does not justify stealing. Everything I see today is mid & quickly forgotten.💋🦁💋
That is what all of this is about. @jack You are so obsessed with me & my book, as you should be. I have penned one of the greatest novels of all time. I truly have and that is just the beginning. It is finished when I say it’s finished. If I teach you anything at all it will be patience and you are going to see the pay off.💋🦁💋
I just don’t understand this. “IP for me but not for thee” is right. You recently closed litigation on the trademark you filed for Block. HR Block sued you over that. IP laws protected you and both sides eventually came to an agreement. Now after you won and settled your case, suddenly it’s no IP laws for anyone else. Just no.💋🦁💋
@jack You have to wait. I’m worth the wait so you will wait. I am getting deeply concerned with these bizarre posts. Bitcoin is going to fail and everything is going to fail if…blah blah blah - even if it’s true, it is defeatist and demoralizing . Fail this and fail that - this is exactly what you will attract. This just isn’t you. Every time I take a little break from posting this happens. I’m here for you but let me cook. ⏲️ 💋🦁💋
omg. It’s 6am and you’re still going on about this. at least the creators work wasn’t stolen even if the pay and royalty is bad, they are able to establish their name and likeness on their owns terms and timeline and have proper credit attributed for their contributions and work. and also opportunity to seek and negotiate a better deal. those opportunities and deals can even seek and follow them.💋🦁💋
Removing IP laws does not necessarily make research unprofitable. Secrets can still be kept in until the point of release. And even if your competitors copy you, you still have a first mover advantage, and more time to improve your product
just ignore it.
The system we have today is the one where artists and original creators get next to nothing and studios, lawyers, and publishers get practically everything and manage to retain ownership of work they didn’t create and invention they didn’t invent basically indefinitely.
Maybe consider that the law that you *believe* protects them, doesn’t actually do that, when the real world results suggest that the creators aren’t who the law benefits. 🤔
THIS is the way.
and the less-rivalrous, less political path.
opt out.
only takes a few 🤝
Open source evrything.
The difference in reception to this on nostr vs X wasn't surprising I guess, but nevertheless entertaining 😅
Oh ok. Delete all card processing fees, financial transaction fees and rewards. Be more lame, Jack.
Parasites
Then don’t delete the laws, change them.
Also many creators are part of an ecosystem in which they AND the others in that system get paid well. Community is great.
It’s been so sad to see a small business champion like you lose your way, man.
Intellectual property isn’t real. A proper understand of property rights leads to this conclusion
View quoted note →
And what if the laws are self contradictory? If I come up with a cool idea for a new tool, and then someone else takes their own resources, time, and energy to build a similar tool, then there is no way I’m NOT the one who is horribly immoral by sending armed thugs to their property, and destroying and stealing the results of their work.
You cannot own an idea. The very purpose of an idea is to share and communicate it. And everyone is richer for it.
This is the entire idea behind open source and why it remains so successful and such a foundational part of the digital economy.
And all you need is contract law. You do not need copyright law in order for something that is like copyright in practice to naturally emerge within networks.
Either way I agree, radical change is needed to the structure of laws around intellectual property. I say this as a filmmaker, storyteller, and media creator.
There are many more models than, “send government goons to attack anyone who copies my work or uses my ideas for their benefit.”
This open source thing has become a religion to you all and you’re very much losing your clear vision
This kinda tells me you have no argument, or at least this is the most empty and meaningless thing you’ve responded with so far.
“Open source is your religion” following my simple, truthful statement is so wildly out of context it’s crazy. I said open source is a significant part of the foundation of the digital economy, because it factually is. Your response shows a greater indication that you are hiding some sort of ideological bias than myself by far. Because you can’t handle a simple statement about it without making the wild leap to implying that “you’re in a cult and I’m ‘the science.’”
And I thought it's about IANA.
I’m busy. Happy to expound later.
By the way, your statements immediately signal to me that you’re too emotional to be elucidating clearly on this subject. ;)
*too emotionally charged
If you’d like to study up for the argument later, it centers on consent, ownership and distribution of power.
His shit is not opensource. He filed for patents. He doesn't accept bitcoin. He censored speech.
What a joke this guy is.
He probably holds only illiterate opinions.
What if you outsource production to China and the sister company copies the product without having to pay for your R&D?
Then grant funded research … must be really profitable.
No law is better 😁
IP is more than patents, it's also trademarks. If I try to imagine a world without trademarks, the picture in my head seems pretty chaotic, poor little me second-guessing every product at the grocery store.
AI will obsolete IP laws
It has to be trolling me
cc: @ABH3PO
Ok, so still don’t have too much time to go into this, but IP laws have been around a long time, with the first showing up with the Greeks and Romans and even the Egyptians. The Greeks established their original IP laws over recipes! No joke. A person with a proprietary recipe was granted Intellectual Property Rights over their recipe in this instance for a period of a year. I can’t remember exactly what the Roman’s used them for, I need to look it up, the Egyptians used them for art- mainly pottery. These civilizations and the civilizations since have recognized that human creativity is a bedrock of a thriving society and that creativity needs to be protected to thrive. Americans did wage a war with England over IP laws when they wanted to establish themselves as an industrial power- you can do the research there, so IP theft is also deep in our roots, but once it was all sorted out, America became a sort of IP law superpower. Here we are today. The current push by a very few to diss these is a push for themselves to make more money and have more power. They want to avoid the lawsuits on the backend with AI applications, etc. it is an affront to democratic process, personal agency and consent. Laws can be tweaked if they are not truly benefiting creators and this is not that. Following proper IP protocol hardly impedes creativity- only profitability. You are easily able to use snippets of any song while having fun mixing in your basement… only when you want to publish that song for your own profit must you consider it. There is much more to say, but not enough time to say it today. These efforts by these evil actors will eventually if not immediately be futile. The human spirit has always and will always prevail. Be well.
*Romans
Leave IP Man Alone
View quoted note →
Ideas are not scarce and therefore cannot be considered property
View quoted note →
Wasn't it Billie Eilish who released “Ocean Eyes” herself on SOUNDCLOUD back in 2015 and thus became widely known?
Just imagine it had Zaps integrated already 10 years ago...
Yup!! And we don't need force to apply trademarks. Nostr enables digitized trademarks as a natural right. Trademarks are the only part of what is called "intellectual property" that is a legitimate form of property right.
Your fault for trusting them without a written, signed, and enforced contract and without purchasing insurance or securing an arbitrator to compensate you for violation of the contract.
There are to many open source models. Open source wins.
100% tariffs on all IP... 🙃
Oh
Libertarianism believes in property rights over tangible resources and goods. Why? Because of their scarcity, which can lead to conflicts over them among humans... from here arises the need for ethical rules to regulate their use. Understanding this, when we talk about intangible resources (ideas), things become very unclear. Ideas are not scarce; anyone can replicate something they see with your resources—text, house designs, phrases, etc.—without stealing from you. Intellectual property is another barrier to freedom of expression and individual liberty. That's the clearest thing I can be about this, many successful examples
The problem isn't really about people copying your work, it's about the fact you have to rely on the State's monopoly on violence to protect your property.
Nigga what the fuck?
🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳
Want to get paid for your work? Don't do stuff that is right click copy-able, also it's fine to ask and expect money for your work, what is not fine is running to the government so that they use violence to make sure no one else can have an idea you once had, you're just robbing the world.
I'm in favor of DRM.
Leave
Also don't put out a video if you're scared of it being copied, let it be run on theatres. If it can be copied it will be copied.
I don't care if you steal physical goods, I'm probably not paying for your work
What I'm not in favor of is Disney owning the sole IP for stat wars, protect your movie, let me make mine.
I've also paid taxes, doesn't mean I'm in favor of them.
Maybe it needs to be destroyed
And let them rob the poor ? I don't think so
Did I say that? We should stop using the state machinery to stop people from right click copying them. They should work on enhancing their own DRM if they don't want people to copy.
It might depend more on the way IP laws define IP and how the laws are written to provide IP holders with temporary monopolies. Should there be a difference between the invention of a new composition versus a new process? Is there a difference in the social value, if any, created by the incentives for public disclosure of the novel ideas in exchange for the temporary monopoly on sale and use of the new products and processes?
So you do get it.
DTAN.XYZ
Torrents on Nostr
I find it a bit difficult to think of it this way for me. I think a temporary monopoly further limits social impact and development and shouldn't be the incentive. I think within the IP framework, they should probably be viewed differently, without being what I'm advocating
But if a bunch of pirate streaming services use a creator's work, isn't that a good thing because it becomes more popular and leads some people to buy the work itself to support the creator?
I don't think violating the NAP yourself is any better. You're better off looking into counter-economic alternatives such as private agreements, registering your work on the blockchain, etc.
There's a way to apply for trademarks today without using the State. It's called the blockchain.
Salaries Ig
If I steal food someone else doesn't get it. That's not the case with movies. if I copy it I'm infact helping others watch it for cheaper.
The shop owner has less food when I still food, the shop owner still has their DVDs when I copy it. Stop treating digital bits like scarce resources.
Steal*
Suck diddys dick
It costs an iphone and some friends, most of the cost is actors fees which I'm fine with bombing
You are just a FIAT consumer who just wants to watch the next shitty show marvel throws at your face, and are willing to pay Disney premium dollars for their shit.
#tankevekkende tråd fra @jack
på tide å tenke nytt pga. #RegulatoryCapture , @Cory Doctorow ?
View quoted note →
Theleathermint.com footer
All modern innovations build upon the foundations laid by past human achievements. It was suggested to transfer intellectual property solely to acknowledge the creator, without granting rights to restrict its use.
True. Blockchain allows permanent storage of data that can be transmitted everywhere, but that's probably overkill for most people to use when they can just do nostr, unless there's a usecase I'm missing. It would make sure you reach everyone to see hey, this is clearly me and this mark is associated with this public key. However you can verify that it's you with just regular ass asymmetric encryption and relays or other services for that purpose.
A world 🌎🌏🌍 full of *UNORIGINAL* CHEAP Copycats????
NO, i don’t think so!
Yet another BRILLIANT & GENIUS idea💡by the 48 Years Old IRRESPONSIBLE Emotionally & MATURITY STUNTED ManCHILD @jack *RESPONSIBLE* for *RUINING* his country with TERRIBLE, COLOSSAL Business Decision MISTAKE and HORRIBLE Taste in people!! 😡😡😡😡😡😡
View quoted note →
I understand your point and agree it has merit. But incentives for publicizing creativity and investing the time and work to create are helpful to those who cannot create in any given category of work and yet benefit from access to what is created.
There may be better ways to provide the incentives but the temporary monopolies of IP might actual speed rather than hinder innovation . It might also be different with respect to individual versus corporate or government innovators.
The goal is to demonstrate that there are ways (more ethical from a libertarian perspective) to earn income from your ideas if your product is good and generates value, in addition to the advantages it offers in terms of innovation and free competition compared to the current perspective. Of course, two remarkable things: this perspective I defend isn't perfect and can't guarantee that you will obtain profits equal to or greater than those obtained by owning a temporary monopoly, but I believe it is the best and we can improve it
This is a very good point you make. If the creation or invention is valuable enough, it should “win” in a free market competition against lessor products or designs. Thus, no need for monopoly imposed by law or regulation.
Access Pools 🐙🔱✨✨
so anyway, dorsey. what did you say? 🚬
Yeah man I'm low IQ, keep paying your Hollywood overlords, I'll have better uses of that money.
I suppose many factors influence this, but in the long run it is like this... natural monopolies fall and innovation will always win
IP law can feel like a bloated mess, stifling innovation more than sparking it. The system’s often just a playground for big corps to flex their legal muscle, not a tool to empower creators. A complete overhaul—or yeah, maybe even "deleting" the outdated bits—could free up so much creativity and progress.
Thomas Jefferson passionately disliked them, if I'm not mistaken.
Wrong path
Good. Controversial take: I'd delete all data protection laws as well. The government should not tell people how to handle data, but companies should make it clear in their policies. Startups or side projects would be much easier to realize in Europe if you don't have to go through thousands of clearances to store something the user gives you voluntarily.
If you give someone your data and don't anonymize or encrypt it, it's your fault. The internet is literally like shouting out stuff into the world. There is no right to delete information from space after they are broadcast, much like you can't just snap your fingers and expect your mistakes to be erased.
View quoted note →
Musicians might not agree with that idea
The laws of physics are strictly enforced. They can’t be ignored.
So Tidal don’t have to pay artists?
Sounds like a move streaming companies would do… ok I don’t think your as horrible as Daniel Elk (who isn’t even a real elk ffs) but if there’s a way to not pay people for their art, he’s gonna use it.
delete all law
You can have your value after the state and middlemen take the lion's share. Everybody pays more. V4V fixes this
delete Coinkite then
Most Bitcoiners don't care about Open Source, just look at how many of em use Coinkite products.
Isn't this also the End of Privacy? When all your secrets are not your prperty anymore.
People are so used to being robbed blind by the state that they have 0 desire left for any kind of "charity" (unless it involves the state giving them a break on the robbery).
That case of mass-scale Stockholm syndrome insanity brings about the mistaken argument that value for value wouldn't work.
You are right. And they took code from Trezor, which makes it even worse.
Patents are meant to protect innovation, but often they do more harm than good.
In 2011, Google bought Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion to shield Android from lawsuits by Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle. Once the job was done, it sold Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91 billion. Motorola’s innovation legacy was never revived.
And out of 17,000 patents, only 18 were used. The rest just sat there. Meanwhile, companies like Qualcomm and Samsung faced 9,423 IP rejections. The unused patents blocked progress in the telco industry.
For smaller players, innovation becomes expensive or impossible due to licensing fees or legal risks.
Patents create dominant players who control entire markets. They block competition and stall progress. Even something as small as a connector design can shut out small builders. And if those patents are buried in some corporate junk drawer, they can hold back entire industries.
China does the opposite.
Although the maker culture started in the U.S., it thrives in China. Cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou are global prototyping hubs where entrepreneurs build custom devices with low friction and high creativity. In the U.S. the models are operating out of fear and protectionism. If the U.S. wants to compete, it needs to let creativity, imagination, and innovation thrive without drama.
The irony is not lost on me that one system empowers its people to build freely, the other seems to question their ability to innovate.
Before Tesla came about, GM and Ford were early movers in the EV industry but could not scale so they halted it. A few years later, Elon comes around, he understood that a fast-growing EV ecosystem would benefit everyone. A global hardware supply chain cannot thrive with one player alone. By open-sourcing Tesla's patents, he flipped the traditional approach, built the ecosystem, and ultimately led the market.
Can Open Source Win? It already has. Jack and Elon prove it everyday.
So do other billion-dollar open-source companies like Red Hat, MongoDB, and Redis Labs who hold it on their own as they go against big tech players Oracle, Microsoft, and Google. The power of open communities and network effects is real.
If the U.S. wants an innovation-driven economy, it has to let go of the fear of being copied. Hoarding IP has slowed it down. Sharing might just move it forward.
View quoted note →
Yes let’s live in a world with no nations. That’s gonna work real nicely with no foreseeable issues or conflict.
Hey Jack, how are Indigenous people protected from having their IP taken and profited from by non Indigenous people, corporations etc? The classic example is people selling art that is called ‘Indigenous’ and the artists are not Indigenous and maybe now not even a person, just an AI? In these kind of examples, the Indigenous folks are not able to earn profit from the value they have provided? I understand IP law is not effective, so what recourse do Indigenous people have?