4 responses

  1. Crosbie Fitch
    October 6, 2011

    Think of it as the environment giving Kickstarter type models a nudge toward an evolutionary path that involves immunity from copyright and patent litigation.

    This just means that there will have to be a ‘BitTorrent type’ solution, i.e. a decentralised one where patent holders are faced with suing a significant fraction of the population if they wish them to cease and desist from exchanging their intellectual work in a free market.

    To have a patent on free exchange is so perverse, that anyone who doesn’t recognise the irony is beyond deprogramming.

    Reply

    • Stephan Kinsella
      October 6, 2011

      Your last paragraph seems sensible, but your words here are too convoluted to be readily comprehended. What exactly are you saying?

      Reply

      • Crosbie Fitch
        October 6, 2011

        Napster was centralised. Litigation against it was evolutionary pressure upon file-sharing technologies/facilities to become decentralised, e.g. Gnutella, BitTorrent, etc.

        Twitter will no doubt also come under pressure and when attacked or corrupted (quiet censorship is discovered) a decentralised version of Twitter will have to take over.

        It is easy for the holder of a privilege to prosecute a single and slow moving target, but 50,000 fans of a musician distributing their work via BitTorrent in exchange for their fans’ commission via BitFund aren’t going to give a fuck about a patent lawyer’s threatening letters – and if they do, it’ll be a riot.

        Reply

  2. Citlali Baisden
    January 20, 2012

    A big thank you for your blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Back to top
mobile desktop