Intellectual Property on Seasteads

(Larry G) #41

All of this says that the implementation is flawed, not that the concept of intellectual property itself is called into question. I agree there are problems with the way the system is set up.

Good luck attracting inventive, creative people, once you tell them their work belongs to the hive.

Again, this is not true. The entire point of patent is to provide a framework for agreements to make inventions available to the general public. One may owe license fees for previously discovered processes, but it absolutely does not prevent you from using it. Especially in an improved process that you invent.

In the software industry it gets murkier, because the steps for performing certain things can look a lot like the steps for performing other things. But on the plus side… ALL of that code will eventually be public domain. All the development that is going into the steps for performing certain types of computing is (in the historical perspective) getting front-loaded into the computer age. Eventually, MOST of what software can do will have been mapped out, and huge libraries of code will be free for anyone to use in ANY kind of prosumer project.

Again, patents have terms that end.


Unlike most libertarians, I’m more focused on copyright since its negative effects are more obvious and widespread. Microsoft may threaten startups for using certain ideas they claim to own, but that pales in comparison to the near infinite amount of negative press about the entertainment industry’s shortcomings on a daily basis. My message to my opponents is to stop using legalese arguments, and refrain from making the claim, “But this piece a paper a politician wrote on says Intellectual Property is necessary.” You can make that same argument with anything. “This piece of paper says that everything I do is for the greater good. Therefore, how can you say that my extortion and thuggery is inherently immoral when this piece or paper says it’s good?”

I’m interested in results, not intentions. And the results are that copyright and patents are inherently destructive and antithetical to creativity and innovation. I have already given a list of the many companies who have abused their creators, and engage in anticonsumerism and other heinous acts. And those are more than enough red flags that Intellectual Property should not be adhered to. If you can argue that the results of having the monopolies of intellectual property have done so much for the tech, medical, and entertainment industries, I’ll reconsider my position. If not, than that proves your intellectual cowardice.


Sounds more like you’ve come in here with a personal axe to grind, rather than work within a system that can and does work.

We’ve posted documentation that belies your claim, and you still insist on denying the proof, and trying to shoot down everything everyone says.

Take Wil Ellmer, and his constant belittling and berating of others, his commercialization of his sites, by advertising in here, his ‘buy tokens’ pay-to play scam, and how he operates, for example… It took the 2 top people of TSI requesting him to delete an account he invited me to make, through THIS forum, then demanded money to ‘introduce’ my concept to his non-existent ‘investors’… Yet he still is allowed to break the rules here, though stated policy declares it wrong.

You seem to think, as does WE, that bashing those that don’t succumb to your force of will, it is somehow your ‘right’ to continue bashing people. I even tried to call truce with him, and he immediately made demands and conditions. THAT is why I have turned to using his own tactics against him.

Hell, I even bemoaned the loss of his subs, but that wasn’t enough. I’ve had enough of his shit, and I refute his BS, with documentation. I dare say, you are headed for the same treatment, when someone else has had enough.

I’d MUCH rather have a conversation of what CAN be done, that a gripe session of what isn’t working for you, or certain individuals. Hell, I’ve even shown HOW to get around patents, for personal use. C’mon… Get positive about what CAN be done.


I asked you to provide evidence of the results of intellectual property being beneficial, and yet you gallivant and use the same legalese “politician scribbles mean this” BS when I stated not to. Then you bring up someone irrelevant to this discussion who is allegedly a bad person. But even if he is a loathsome human being, he’s still right on the issue of intellectual property, which is that it’s inherently immoral and destructive. You can be a bad person and still be right.

As for everything else, it seems like you’re too much of a coward to debate me with intellectual honesty. You can use all the politician scribbles on paper, capitalized words, and mental diversions from the argument you want, but until you actually provide clear evidence of the results of intellectual property being in your favor, you’re just going to keep embarrassing yourself.


Basically, you’d rather complain, than do your own research, or find ways to DO what you are having issues with.

Me? I’m jury-rigging a heater for a digester, jury-rigged from an FRP Pool filter. I’m DOING stuff… This didn’t work, because that failed, so fix around that, then a seal shrank from the contact with a fluid used as coolant for the heating element,… I have been working on a formula for CHEAP geopolymer that scientists say CAN’T work, but it does… May have even achieved yet another break-through there.

I don’t CARE about what’s ‘wrong’ with the system, I care about what WORKS.

FIND a way. I can document a thousand things, but if you just want to be angry, you’re just going to be angry.


You obviously don’t care about what works because you didn’t do enough research.

Hmm, what’s this? Monopolistic behavior in the minds of executives? I wonder what caused them to adopt such anticonsumer strategies while still staying afloat business wise. Could it be that they have loyal consumerbases who will buy from them regardless of quality for the simple fact that they’re the only ones selling works based on ideas they love and cherish?

I could send you numerous other stories of how gaming and film publishers engage in other heinous acts. But I can tell you won’t respond to me about the links I posted or the executives’ rationale for screwing over consumers, now will you?


Execs want money, and they don’t give a rip about consumers, which is why life-saving meds, like the Epi-Pen are out of reach, in the US, but actually affordable in the rest of the world, even though developed on the tax-paying public funds.

You’re just being argumentative, for the sake of arguing. Goodnight, God Bless.


More intellectual cowardice. If you’re not going to contribute anything of substance to this debate, let alone respond to my links regarding copyright, than you can leave. Try the political discussion discord server. They hate executives too.

I just think they’re making the most of the kind of market provided to them. Yes, they all want to make money, but they need to provide goods and services people would want to buy. If what your selling is low-quality, no one will buy from you. However, if you provide valuable goods and/or services, you’ll make money, but you’ll also make your customers better off. That’s the beauty of economics. There doesn’t need to be exploitation or fraud. The interests of all parties involved can line up perfectly. The way you describe executives implies that you don’t understand the free market, let alone the fundamentals of economics. To which I ask, why are you even a seasteader? You seem to have more in common with the supporters of corporatism and socialism running Western countries into the ground than you do the libertarian minded founders of The Seasteading Institute. If you want a seastead with a political resemblance to what we have to contend with today, than you miss the freaking point of seasteading.


I am what I am, which is not to say I am a billionaire in search of TSI as a project. As for my 'steading goals, they differ from building floating condos and calling them cities, as well. My own goal is a floating, offshore home for my wife and I, with the ability to expand into the surrounding area for whoever comes.

My own goals are not to create new governments, but a new way of life, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about new forms of government.

As for my IP, I’ve actually posted enough in here, and my own smaller forum, that my own work is clearly duplicable, and my own concepts are well documented, using facts, existing technology, and science that is also well documented. I don’t intend to create anything new, just put things together in a different manner.


Okay, I can see where you’re coming from. My seasteading goals are to create a city that’s a Mecca for artists and inventors worldwide free from the shackles of copyright, patents, rating systems and all other forms of corporatism that are crippling the tech, medical and entertainment industries, especially animation. I believe that by providing an environment conducive to creativity and innovation, we can rejuvenate suffering industries and raise the quality of technology, medicine and entertainment to heights never before seen in history. That’s why I’m a seasteader, because the centralization of the production of technology, medicine and entertainment have spelt nothing but stagnation for the consumer, and will continue to do so until this destructive myth is dispelled.


Don’t get me wrong, I intend to ‘infringe’ on patents and copyrights, but for my own personal use, which IS within patent and copyright law. I’ve had to prove that point in here, too many times. My point being, patents and copyrights are really there in an attempt to protect your protected ideas from becoming someone else’ commercial product, without compensating you.

I fully expect of make my own hull from geopolymer and basalt rebar, but nobody makes the rebar I want, so I’ve found the way to actually make it, and my geopolymer formula will be my own product. Lord willing, I can undercut the price of concrete and make a killing, financially-speaking.

One draw-back to geopolymer is permanence… Who’d think a permanent structure would be a problem…? It has to be designed around systems upgrades, materials changes over many many years, and you just absolutely DO NOT want to build a POS, that cannot keep up with the times…

Unlike concrete, geopolymer is supposed to be capable of bonding new to old, which makes repairing it much easier. With the right design, and a bit of foresight, I hope my hull will last for generations. THAT is the legacy I want to leave for my children, grandchildren and future generations. This one man built, with his own 2 hands, a thing of permanence, to value as an heirloom, like no other. I may never even be a footnote in history, but my descendents will know I was here. If ‘he’ can do that, what am ‘I’ capable of? THAT is the question they should ask themselves…

(Kim Cowdroy) #52

Further to Aga’s statement that Intellectual Property laws should not apply internally, I too would envisage a system where people collaborate on inventions, innovation and software in a seasteading community in an “open source” way.

As Larry has indicated, there still needs to be individual incentive. People still need to have the possibility of receiving two things for their efforts:
a) Money
b) Recognition

To do this I would see a mechanism for providing something that might be called “Invention Tokens”. This is not actually money, but it provides a means of recognising people’s efforts, and also later providing a way to distribute profits in a reasonable manner. Team members may all get a base token amount and those doing exceptional work would get much more. Alongside this, people involved would still need to be paid, but at a lower rate than otherwise or at least provided with the minimum for living.

There are a large number of projects for new processes, inventions, innovation, software that will be required for the seasteading community itself. Collaboration will be essential. But the beneficiaries of this will be those living on the seasteads. So these people benefit from the efforts, as well as being rewarded with money and tokens individually and within the teams, for their work.

Inventions that can be sold outside the community would bring in much needed foreign money. Also, as the products and services are replicated to new seasteads that are sold, then money comes in for potential distribution based on tokens acquired.

It does not have to be a purely cooperative type of system. Tokens could be timestamped and could diminish in value over time to part value say, so new inventions will be encouraged with sufficient potential percentage of the overall money that is made later.

This is a system somewhere between open source, where if money is received it is based on charity, and the current patent system which appears to be unwieldy, requires an individual to be involved in a number of processes in getting to production and finishes up more like a lottery in terms of actually getting a large windfall, or even repaying the costs of patenting.

Further, I would expect all relevant inventions and software to be applied for International Patents by this community, specifically by a company registered in an existing country for the purpose. This can then be done as a specialist task with funding from the community to apply for the patents. This frees up the inventors, engineers and software developers. Also bringing products and services into production can be done by project managers and teams set up for the task.

In summary, those participating
a) get to specialise in their preferred areas of invention, support, production.
b) they can freely collaborate and can be more productive,
c) they have the knowledge of being part of something much bigger than they could do themselves,
d) products for the seasteads will be of direct benefit to those involved and can be rolled out for free or at least at much lower cost than otherwise,
e) they get recognition for their efforts,
f) they would be expected to get paid later based on how productive they have been,
g) the community still gets patent rights so where products or these patent rights themselves are sold outside the community, relatively large amounts could still be obtained to be distributed later to the individuals,
h) tokens could be sold by individuals in a market system in order to realise money early.

In short, it may not be for everyone, but it does not have to be. For the right people it could be of great benefit and could help to propel the seasteading movement once such a community gets established.


A good paper on the subject…


An actual good paper on the subject.

Are you pro-IP people so arrogant as to think that you are entitled to all the profits of an idea you happened to think of first that you’re willing to violate the property rights of others to attain their money you think is yours?

(Larry G) #55

Actually, yes: it IS “money”. Any “token” you use to reward people that acts as a means of accounting for debt or assets is “money”.

Rather, it is voluntary. I have donated to multiple open source projects out of enlightened self interest, not out of charity. Charity is given to the unfortunate with no expectation of payback.

I’m a huge fan of various open source projects and the creative commons. It is merely one way of licensing your creations to receive benefit from them (recognition is inherent to the creative commons, and social status is surely a form of personal benefit.)

I could see a particular seastead dedicated to inventors/creators/makers, with a culture oriented towards protecting and rewarding them in ways that are additional to monetary compensation being a very effective incubator of technical progress. Certainly, the bureaucratic process of protecting IP could be smoothed to make it more likely the maker is rewarded vs rewarding patent lawyers and venture capitalists.

(Kim Cowdroy) #56

By “not actually money”, I was particularly thinking of the deferred nature of the benefit, a bit like paying with shares, but yes it does fulfil the basic criteria for money as a “payment for goods or services”. Another point though, if the value were to diminish over time, the criteria of money as “a store of value” would not be properly satisfied.

By “charity”, I was just trying to stress the “voluntary” nature of payments in an Open Source arrangement. What I am thinking of is something a little more formal, so people do not have to ask for payments as with Open Source, instead they will receive payments more or less automatically later as money is made from all the inventions, based on the number and date of tokens held by each person.

Could not agree more!


So, the circle continues…

IP begets patents, which are to be used as currency, to benefit the person that bothered to designate his/her idea as his/her idea, in order to have something of value to barter in exchange for things he/she needs…


I’m starting to believe that none of the pro-IP users here understand why it’s inherently illegitimate. Let’s break everything down here. Intellectual Property, especially copyright, is a result of the state “legislation”, writing arbitrary rules on paper, and threatening violence against people on paper. It’s no different than a street gang threatening civilians with violence if they wear the wrong colours or fail to pay tribute to them. The only difference is that one is perceived with the right to rule while the other does not. In the case of copyright, it would be the equivalent of the street gang giving chefs monopolies over their original dishes, and the ability to threaten those who sell meals that happened to be first cooked by someone else.


It’s as legitimate as private ownership of the money in my wallet.

John Locke said that every man owns himself, and the fruits of his labor.

What you are saying is that anyone who steals the fruits of my labor is somehow legitimate in your mind.

The whole basis of capitalism, and by extension libertarianism, is that by working, I can create worth. My incentive to work is the worth I create, which is i direct proportion to the number of people who benefit from the products I create.

To suggest otherwise is worse than socialism, it is corruption and criminal.


Nice strawman. You are not entitled to all the profits of an idea you happened to have thought of first. You’re claiming that IP is as legitimate as the money in your wallet when it’s more analogous to the first pie baker threatening to burn a chef’s bakery because he sells pies and has a bigger market share than he does. The principle is the same. And it’s not even remotely legitimate, and trying to equivocate the state-sanctioned monopoly legal fiction known as intellectual property that came from major publishers lobbying the British Crown (corporatism) to a moral principle is utterly intellectually disingenuous. You don’t need a monopoly on the expression of an idea to be creative anymore than you need a monopoly on a specislized dish to be a successful chef.