I doubt he understood that he was doing speculative, risky investing.
Mid-bubble, I can't count how many people told me that the market can only go up, or who looked at me like I was insane when I said I was watching month-over-month sales to try to avoid getting creamed when the bubble inevitably burst.
I specifically said 'large-scale piracy' because I agree that a sufficiently dedicated individual will always be able to steal intellectual property.
That said, an IP market doesn't need perfect government protection to survive. It just needs to be good enough that those who wish to steal additional copies incur substantive risk and/or cost.
I'm not arguing it's the best or only way to proceed, simply that it is a possible and seemingly viable way to do so, and as such, people would do well to recognize that the future is not guaranteed to be copyright and patent-free.
Or perhaps copyright is a valid idea, and is not going to be abandoned.
Perhaps the government will simply increase the costs and risks associated with breaking that law until they are so extreme, and the risk of getting caught so high, that large-scale piracy will cease to be a worthwhile endeavor.
I know that HN is fond of the view that IP will be abandoned, but I see no compelling reason to believe your vision is more likely than mine.
I'm not a fan of creating atificial scarcity, as in DRM on bits that cost nothing to duplicate
I'm a fan of creating artificial scarcity, if it is what the seller prefers. I'm disturbed by the number of Hackers who would prefer to strip individuals of their rights to do business as they please, selling products on their on terms.
The marginal costs couldn't be more irrelevant to the discussion.
It hadn't occurred to me before, but I refer to myself as a businessman in most contexts, and describe only my unproven activities as 'entrepreneurial'.
it is certainly fair comment to say that Obama, by appointing industry lawyers, has given tacit endorsement to the industry stance of harsh penalties.
No, it isn't.
If I know that X laws need reform, I'll hire lawyers who are very familiar with X laws to review possible changes, their effects, and how they would use those laws, to try to avoid making a bad situation worse.
On the flip side, if I want X laws strengthened, I'd still hire lawyers who are familiar with X laws, to figure out how to make them stronger, and plug the holes.
As such, I'd contend that Obama's hiring of lawyers who specialized in IP tells us only that his administration is interested in gaining expertise in the application of IP law.
That said, I tend to be a lot less outraged about politics than other HN'ers.
if it was disruptive, if it was the best thing since sliced bread, you wouldn't have to do this.
The man who invented sliced bread didn't make it popular. It was initially viewed as a bad idea. Acceptance required the selling efforts of Wonder Bread, and even then it took a number of years before most consumers decided that it was a good idea.
History is rife with examples of products and services that became incredibly popular, but had slow uptake. Lack of initial acceptance proves almost nothing about the usefulness, quality, or long-term viability of the product.
1) I schedule my time rigorously. There's dedicated time allowances for every single thing I want to do. If my time budget doesn't allow something that's important to me, I cancel or reschedule something else.
Mid-bubble, I can't count how many people told me that the market can only go up, or who looked at me like I was insane when I said I was watching month-over-month sales to try to avoid getting creamed when the bubble inevitably burst.