Will the Ron Paul Channel Get Crushed?

[cajuncocoa]

Marc Clair of LionsOfLiberty.com (http://lionsofliberty.com/) emails:

Robert,



It appears the first episode of the Ron Paul Channel is on YouTube.

[Link to pirated youtube video removed from text of email-RW]

At first I thought it was a free preview, and had planned to post it on my site, but upon
further inspection it appears this channel is not affiliated with Ron Paul and is not official.
The channel even links back to RonPaul.com, which we all know is not owned or run by Ron Paul.

I'm curious about your take on this as it relates to your IP stance. Is it up to Ron Paul and
Ron Paul Channel to figure out how to prevent something like this? It seems that if every episode can be slapped onto YouTube the next day by these days it could easily crush the business model.

Thanks

Marc Clair
Editor In Chief
LionsOfLiberty.com

(http://lionsofliberty.com/)

First as a believer in intellectual property protection, and specifically in this case copyright protection, I would object to anyone copying from the Ron Paul Channel, without the direct permission of Ron Paul, or the entity that holds the rights to the RPC broadcast.

My thoughts on this are completely in line with Murray Rothbard who wrote in Man, Economy and State (http://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Scholars-Edition/dp/1933550279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376458051&sr=8-1&keywords=man+economy+and+state) (Chapter 10: section 7)


On the free market[...]There would[...]be copyright for any inventor or creator who made use of it, and this copyright would be per*petual, not limited to a certain number of years.

Indeed as do I, Rothbard saw any infringement on copyright as theft:



. Let us consider copyright. A man writes a book or composes music. When he publishes the book or sheet of music, he imprints on the first page the word “copyright.” This indicates that any man who agrees to purchase this product also agrees as part of the exchange not to recopy or reproduce this work for sale. In other words, the author does not sell his property out*right to the buyer; he sells it on condition that the buyer not reproduce it for sale. Since the buyer does not buy the property outright, but only on this condition, any infringement of the con*tract by him or a subsequent buyer is implicit theft and would be treated accordingly on the free market. The copyright is there*fore a logical device of property right on the free market.


Thus, unless permission has been specifically granted to post the video on youtube, there is a clear stream of libertarian scholarship holding that the posting is theft.

As for the remedies Ron Paul, or the RPC organization, have, they certainly can pursue the thieves in a court of law. Also as I understand it, if youtube is contacted they may pull a video if they consider it in violation of copyright. It will have to be up to Ron Paul or the RPC organization to determine if it is worth the effort to use either of these remedies.

It is held in parts of the anti-IP community that because it is difficult to enforce intellectual property rights law that IP law should be wiped off the books. This is simply central planning. It should be left to every victim of theft whether or not he wants to pursue damages, not some overseers who want to establish the limits for everyone on the ability to pursue damages. How is that libertarian?

As for the RPC business model, itself, obviously to the degree that daily broadcasts are pirated and published on youtube, RPC will lose revenue. It will have to be up to RP and the RPC organization to determine if it is worthwhile to continue production if revenues are not high enough because of pirating and if it is difficult to protect against piracy. It may be that the revenue loss is not that great and RP decides to continue the channel or RP may decide to change the model to make RPC, say, advertiser supported.

All these are decisions that will have to be made by RP and the RPC organization. That this decision making will have to be made also erases the the idea advanced by anti-IP advocates that there is no harm done by copying material, because the original creator of the material still has his original copy. We can see the weakness in that argument most clearly in this discussion about RPC. Great damage to RPC can be done by reproducing the broadcasts. It can create a great fall off in revenue, possibly to the point where the channel will have to be shutdown. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/08/will-ron-paul-channel-get-crushed.html

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ron Paul should force them to take it down. If he wanted to post free previews, he would do so. I agree that the youtube videos of the broadcast are a copyright violation. Honestly, I am surprised that they have been up as long as they have.

[cajuncocoa]

I agree with you on this rare occasion, Lou. I hope he does. Free previews is a good idea as well; it would allow us to send something to those who aren't on board yet.

[KingNothing]

Ron Paul should force them to take it down. If he wanted to post free previews, he would do so. I agree that the youtube videos of the broadcast are a copyright violation. Honestly, I am surprised that they have been up as long as they have.

I would leave them up if I were Ron to drum up interest in his show, and make the show free of charge. Once viewership reached a certain level, he'd be making more money from advertising than he ever could via fees. And that's to say nothing about the fact that he's far more likely to get awesome guests if he has a wide audience.

[TonySutton]

RP needs to hire an effective social media person. Someone had TheRonPaulChannel on youtube which has links to ronpaul(dot)com and ronpaulchannel.com

They need to work with social media outlets to push ron paul channel and drive membership. An organized campaign would give shortened sneak peak videos linked back to the website. This is not rocket science :(

[angelatc]

I do not see Glenn Becks broadcasts on YouTube. Ron should have them take it down, but he might be slow in pulling the trigger because of the backlash over the fee for the channel. But he might be already filing the forms.

[angelatc]

RP needs to hire an effective social media person. Someone had TheRonPaulChannel on youtube which has links to ronpaul(dot)com and ronpaulchannel.com

They need to work with social media outlets to push ron paul channel and drive membership. An organized campaign would give shortened sneak peak videos linked back to the website. This is not rocket science :(

If he had hired a decent marketing director, the fee would not be as much of a shock as it seemed to be. Some things never change.

[ctiger2]

They should've done the first episode as a freebie so people can see what they'd get. What I'd do is post them 1-2 weeks later on Ron's official tube channel after they air on his ronpaulchannel. That way everyone could eventually see them but paying people would get 1-2 week lead. Which I'd think would be fair. Posting them the day after on some random person's tube is undermining.

[mczerone]

RP's channel will fail, and we can brainstorm better ways to produce it/market it.

But Wenzel is small-minded about the IP issue, and his take on it here only leads to further scarcifying RP's message.


It is held in parts of the anti-IP community that because it is difficult to enforce intellectual property rights law that IP law should be wiped off the books. This is simply central planning. It should be left to every victim of theft whether or not he wants to pursue damages, not some overseers who want to establish the limits for everyone on the ability to pursue damages. How is that libertarian?

Way to straw-man. The "difficult to enforce" argument is one of the bottom tools in the bucket of the anti-IP position, and it's not even a positive argument for their position, it's simply a critique of the alternative (a way that pro-IP positions fail).

It seems that Wenzel is just arguing that there are contractual rights to "IP" - and that specific relationships must exist for enforcement. And then they have to find a court to enforce their claims.


In all, the libertarian-scholars need to stop arguing about what the law would be, and start focusing on arguing for a method for discovering the best laws: competing courts operating on fixed fees and subscriptions to foster an environment where good decisions are rewarded and bad decisions are punished by the market for justice.

I'd bet that the anti-IP people and Robert Wenzel could agree that a service like iTunes could agree with content producers not to host content that are "copies" (covers/samples/rip-offs) of currently available content; and the costs of enforcement levels could be discovered through market forces. Now where they'd disagree is if a 3rd party host could offer those rip-offs. Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't. WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE MARKET WILL DECIDE. Presumably the justice orgs would just shrug these off as low-class rip-off markets and the buyers would know they're risking getting "bad" products by shopping outside established hosts. And (to tie this back into Wenzel's straw-man argument) creators would recognize that it's not worth the cost to go around playing whack-a-mole with any number of alternative hosting sites that may or may not be hurting their economic position.

In the OP case, RP isn't marketing his product to spread his message and maximize the profits in the long run - he seems to be milking his die-hard supporters for some petty cash to fund his retirement without eating into his savings. He might be planning to just run this station for another 3-5 years until he's ready to fade into his final days with his family.

If he's really interested in spreading the liberty message, he should be giving away most of the content for free. He should not care about the repeated sharing of the videos. He should get youtube ad revenue if he wants to keep costs covered, and ask for donations at the end of each episode, or an Amazon affiliate program, or selling value-added products through the show (e.g. autographed books from his collection or his guests, DRM protected bonus content, or tie-ins to live events).

As it stands now, this production fits one of the two standard operating procedures evident from RP's brand: (1) absolute incompetence in marketing, financial management, employee oversight, and concern for broad-appeal, or (2) only caring about growing RP's personal/family net worth by taking money from the gullible and fervent supporters who view him as a messiah.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I agree with you on this rare occasion, Lou. I hope he does. Free previews is a good idea as well; it would allow us to send something to those who aren't on board yet.

You need content though to have a free preview. One interview, a trailer and a tour of the studio isn't much to sell to someone. If it were my business, I would have produced a ton of content prior to the launch.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I would leave them up if I were Ron to drum up interest in his show, and make the show free of charge. Once viewership reached a certain level, he'd be making more money from advertising than he ever could via fees. And that's to say nothing about the fact that he's far more likely to get awesome guests if he has a wide audience.

See my free preview comment above. I think that would have been a better option.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Another thought is why didn't they offer a 1 mo / 6 mo / 12 mo option with the 6 & 12 being cash up front and discounted. They could then use the revenue for advertising and marketing.

[FSP-Rebel]

RP's channel will fail, and we can brainstorm better ways to produce it/market it.

As it stands now, this production fits one of the two standard operating procedures evident from RP's brand: (1) absolute incompetence in marketing, financial management, employee oversight, and concern for broad-appeal, or (2) only caring about growing RP's personal/family net worth by taking money from the gullible and fervent supporters who view him as a messiah.
Exactly what I have been pondering. He needs to stop using his name for this channel or his peace and prosperity institute as this will yield limited appeal. Thus, it will stay as a money-only generating outfit w/ little to no expansion in spreading the message. Good job on your second assessment pointing out how some supporters can be viewed.

[FrankRep]

Lets see how Libertarians deal with Intellectual Property rights in real life.

This should be fun.

[Peace&Freedom]

RP's channel will fail, and we can brainstorm better ways to produce it/market it.

But Wenzel is small-minded about the IP issue, and his take on it here only leads to further scarcifying RP's message...

As it stands now, this production fits one of the two standard operating procedures evident from RP's brand: (1) absolute incompetence in marketing, financial management, employee oversight, and concern for broad-appeal, or (2) only caring about growing RP's personal/family net worth by taking money from the gullible and fervent supporters who view him as a messiah.

With Wenzel's mentality, we've certainly come a long ways from the grassroots, bottom up philosophy of handing out homemade DVDs, where nobody hassled over IP or otherwise bottlenecking getting the message out. We need a rebirth of that cool spirit, and less legaleze about take down orders and "follow the leader" top down directives.

[fisharmor]

RP's channel will fail, and we can brainstorm better ways to produce it/market it.

Here are some other winning ideas he could go with:

-Broadcast in analog on the VHF band.
-Create a serial to run prior to feature motion pictures.
-Pocket Flix. Remember this? (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2023/2091619767_26e62f46e0_o.jpg) It's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!
-Offer a free month of ice block delivery by horse-drawn wagon with a year's paid subscription.

[cajuncocoa]

Lets see how Libertarians deal with Intellectual Property rights in real life.

This should be fun.
Not all libertarians fall in lockstep on this issue. I believe in the protection of IP rights myself.

[cajuncocoa]

You need content though to have a free preview. One interview, a trailer and a tour of the studio isn't much to sell to someone. If it were my business, I would have produced a ton of content prior to the launch.

Have you ever seen a good movie trailer? If you know how to boil things down you could excerpt a 20 minute interview into a 30-second spot. It doesn't matter how much content he has, you take what's there and find a good teaser without giving the whole thing away.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Have you ever seen a good movie trailer? If you know how to boil things down you could excerpt a 20 minute interview into a 30-second spot. It doesn't matter how much content he has, you take what's there and find a good teaser without giving the whole thing away.

Oh I agree. I just mean in the sense that someone signs up and all they got in the site is one piece of content. Much easier to sell the product if he had say 50 hours of prerecorded content to start. They could have produced some lecture series, maybe licensed some videos from others, etc. Right now all they have is one interview which I can get on youtube, and when they do the next one, I'll probably be able to get that one too.

I like the concept of it all, just doesn't seem like they got anyone on the team who has produced this sort of thing before. We'll see though

[cajuncocoa]

Oh I agree. I just mean in the sense that someone signs up and all they got in the site is one piece of content. Much easier to sell the product if he had say 50 hours of prerecorded content to start. They could have produced some lecture series, maybe licensed some videos from others, etc. Right now all they have is one interview which I can get on youtube, and when they do the next one, I'll probably be able to get that one too.

I like the concept of it all, just doesn't seem like they got anyone on the team who has produced this sort of thing before. We'll see thoughI agree, that would have been better. It's something sorely needed to help those of us in our quest to help to educate others to our cause.

[Tod]

Not all libertarians fall in lockstep on this issue. I believe in the protection of IP rights myself.

Me too.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I agree, that would have been better. It's something sorely needed to help those of us in our quest to help to educate others to our cause.

I'm of the opinion that when we do something we should do it better than anyone else. I like the concept that he has with this, but the more I look at it the more I am disappointed in the product. Take The Blaze for example, they have a bunch of different programs they produce every day. A ton more content. I was hoping for something more than that from Ron. Like someone would have signed up for the Blaze, watched it for a week or two and said, "ok let's do that our way"

[cajuncocoa]

I'm of the opinion that when we do something we should do it better than anyone else. I like the concept that he has with this, but the more I look at it the more I am disappointed in the product. Take The Blaze for example, they have a bunch of different programs they produce every day. A ton more content. I was hoping for something more than that from Ron. Like someone would have signed up for the Blaze, watched it for a week or two and said, "ok let's do that our way"I don't know if they would be willing to listen, but someone with a knowledge of how to get this done should get in contact with them before it goes wrong too far.

[ClydeCoulter]

I don't know if they would be willing to listen, but someone with a knowledge of how to get this done should get in contact with them before it goes wrong too far.

I just wish that several people could get together, like Ron, Ben Swann, etc... and do this right. All of this duplicate effort, money, equipment, etc. going to waste.
Ben pulled together 200K+ up front but is using it in a separate effort from Ron's. What is with this, I don't understand.

[cajuncocoa]

I just wish that several people could get together, like Ron, Ben Swann, etc... and do this right. All of this duplicate effort, money, equipment, etc. going to waste.
Ben pulled together 200K+ up front but is using it in a separate effort from Ron's. What is with this, I don't understand.

Another fantastic idea. +rep

[CaptLouAlbano]

I just wish that several people could get together, like Ron, Ben Swann, etc... and do this right. All of this duplicate effort, money, equipment, etc. going to waste.
Ben pulled together 200K+ up front but is using it in a separate effort from Ron's. What is with this, I don't understand.

I like that too, create a network of sorts. Honestly that is what I assumed this was going to be. I am sure he will get his fare share of sign ups, but it would hard for me to market this product to anyone other than the most die hard fan.

[angelatc]

Exactly what I have been pondering. He needs to stop using his name for this channel or his peace and prosperity institute as this will yield limited appeal. Thus, it will stay as a money-only generating outfit w/ little to no expansion in spreading the message. Good job on your second assessment pointing out how some supporters can be viewed.

you will get flamed....

[angelatc]

If he's really interested in spreading the liberty message, he should be giving away most of the content for free. He should not care about the repeated sharing of the videos. He should get youtube ad revenue if he wants to keep costs covered, and ask for donations at the end of each episode, or an Amazon affiliate program, or selling value-added products through the show (e.g. autographed books from his collection or his guests, DRM protected bonus content, or tie-ins to live events).

As it stands now, this production fits one of the two standard operating procedures evident from RP's brand: (1) absolute incompetence in marketing, financial management, employee oversight, and concern for broad-appeal, or (2) only caring about growing RP's personal/family net worth by taking money from the gullible and fervent supporters who view him as a messiah.

This is what he has always done. It is what he has always been. There isnt anything wrong with it. Its a shock to some of us though.

[presence]

I do not believe IP / knowledge can be owned.
I don't believe digital content can be owned.
I don't believe in owned code.
I don't believe in text, writings, images, or any of the like.

I'll engage in discussion of trademark on a fraud level,

but I have zero interest in protecting the "statist imposed monopolies", "corporate fascism", and "artificial scarcity" of copyright or patents.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Libertarian:perspectives:on:intellectual:property. html


Home (http://www.economicexpert.com/) > Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property


One question that divides libertarians (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Libertarianism.htm) is the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of privileges such as copyright, patent, and trademark -- those usually subsumed under the rubric of " intellectual property (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Intellectual:property.htm)".

Many libertarians, particularly those unaware of online politics, don't have a strong opinion on the topic. A good number consider it a minor matter in the light of greater government violations of ordinary everyday rights, including regular property.

Some natural-law libertarians believe in a right of authors and inventors to control others' copying of their creations. They usually believe this right should have all the conventional attributes of property, including perpetual inheritance. They differentiate between the intellectual property (e.g. a blueprint, or music) and its physical manifestation (e.g. the machine or a copy of the music), the former being used to create the latter. They believe, therefore, that an owner's control over the use of his/her property extends to control over the use of intellectual property. Nonetheless, such a right (in their view) would exist regardless of whether government chose to enforce it.


Other natural-law libertarians believe that intellectual property is but a monopoly privilege that wouldn't exist but for government intervention, and that it should be abolished. To them, whatever secrecy and exclusivity are to exist should be achieved out of voluntary contracts, the cost of which are to be born by those who try to achieve secrecy and exclusivity.


There are also libertarians who consider patent rights to be monopoly priviledges mainly based on the fact that they bind people who may never have heard of the patent, nor the inventor. These libertarians may accept copyrights as similar ends could arise from contracts between supplier and receiver of information.

A few minarchists (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Minarchism.htm), including most Objectivists (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Objectivist:philosophy.htm), accept the mainstream justifications of copyright et al. as monopolies useful to the market, regarding them as necessary acts of government to promote industrial and authorial innovation. Other libertarians consider the grant of monopoly (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Monopoly.htm) to be beyond the pale of minarchism.

Many libertarians consider copyright (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Copyright.htm) and patent (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Patent.htm) to be forms of enclosure (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Enclosure.htm) -- illegitimate government creation of exclusive privilege by prohibiting most individuals from accessing commons (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Commons.htm). Copyright and patents are government-granted monopolies on production, and no better than a government-granted monopoly on producing food or Internet service.

Trademark (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Trademark.htm), unlike copyright and patent, can be construed as a protection against fraud and misrepresentation: it ensures that others cannot abuse a successful product's good name to promote an inferior knockoff. Since most libertarians believe that fraud should be criminal, they agree in this regard with trademark law.

However, in many jurisdictions the concept of trademark dilution (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Trademark.htm#Dilution) has developed to protect trademarks as a property right, securing the investment the trademark owner has made in establishing and promoting a strong mark without regard to likelihood for confusion. This has even been used to limit free speech about a product, something few libertarians would be likely to defend.

Anarcho-capitalists (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Anarcho:capitalism.htm) might differ as to the final answer, but agree that the optimal answer would emerge from a free market in justice and protection.




I believe in the hermetic/alchemist rule:


If you want to keep some bit of knowledge to yourself, don't share it.


This whole concept of IP is about to crumble in the P2P interconnected, encrypted, 3d printed age.


If you want to give Ron Paul $10/mo to watch his channel "live", God Bless You.
If you want to share a youtube copy with your friends, God Bless You too.


I can guarantee you however, that any content produced WILL eventually find its way to some dark alley in the commons. This tendency is a blessing not a curse.




Lao Tzu: "The highest good is like water."


8The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao.

In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.

When you are content to be simply yourself
and don't compare or compete,
everybody will respect you.

[LibertyEagle]

Lets see how Libertarians deal with Intellectual Property rights in real life.

This should be fun.

We already know, don't we? PDFs to Ron Paul's newest books were on the web within days of them being released. Don't you recall the issue being discussed here at the time. I found it to be pretty disgusting, personally.

[nobody's_hero]

I just wish that several people could get together, like Ron, Ben Swann, etc... and do this right. All of this duplicate effort, money, equipment, etc. going to waste.
Ben pulled together 200K+ up front but is using it in a separate effort from Ron's. What is with this, I don't understand.

Yeah there's too much talent lying around for this not to happen. If they could coordinate they could create something lasting and kickass.

[Carson]

I think the video up is doing more for raising awareness and revenue than taking it down ever could. Cheep advertising?

I would think from seeing the subscription cost it isn't going to be a business decision that gets us to subscribe. It's going to take good old fashioned heart and the will to go the extra mile for the love of country.



http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

[Carson]

I figured out a way to save $5.00 on the subscription fee maybe.

Being a TotalFarker runs $5.00 a month. If you don't subscribe to it your already over half way there on the $9.95


Total Fark subscription;

http://total.fark.com/



SUBSCRIBE TO THE RON PAUL CHANNEL;

http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/subscribe-now/

[satchelmcqueen]

i have 'theronpaulshow' on youtube. i am willing to donate it to ron if i can get in touch with the right people. i dont update it much cause i dont have the time. i owe him this if he wants it.

[Carson]

The Ron Paul Channel could also take off by being used in a commercial manor by the main stream media.

[fr33]

Looks like they got youtube to take the videos down. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRonPaulChannel1

[QueenB4Liberty]

Looks like they got youtube to take the videos down. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRonPaulChannel1

Good. If you want to see it, pay for it.

[fr33]

Good. If you want to see it, pay for it.

I haven't watched any of them :) It was easier to resist because I really dislike the owner of ronpaul(dot)com and his mooching ways.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I haven't watched any of them :) It was easier to resist because I really dislike the owner of ronpaul(dot)com and his mooching ways.

Good. :) No one likes a mooch, especially our crowd.

[heavenlyboy34]

Lets see how Libertarians deal with Intellectual Property rights in real life.

This should be fun.
You could already see it if you bothered to pay attention. See mises.org and matveimediaarts.blogspot.com for two of many examples.

[heavenlyboy34]

I do not believe IP / knowledge can be owned.
I don't believe digital content can be owned.
I don't believe in owned code.
I don't believe in text, writings, images, or any of the like.

I'll engage in discussion of trademark on a fraud level,

but I have zero interest in protecting the "statist imposed monopolies", "corporate fascism", and "artificial scarcity" of copyright or patents.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Libertarian:perspectives:on:intellectual:property. html




I believe in the hermetic/alchemist rule:


If you want to keep some bit of knowledge to yourself, don't share it.


This whole concept of IP is about to crumble in the P2P interconnected, encrypted, 3d printed age.


If you want to give Ron Paul $10/mo to watch his channel "live", God Bless You.
If you want to share a youtube copy with your friends, God Bless You too.


I can guarantee you however, that any content produced WILL eventually find its way to some dark alley in the commons. This tendency is a blessing not a curse.




Lao Tzu: "The highest good is like water."
presence wins the thread. +rep

[TaftFan]

Looks like they got youtube to take the videos down. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRonPaulChannel1
Another channel has the first two episodes

[Schifference]

I recognize my shortfalls and therefore delegate others with more charisma to deliver a message when necessary. I think that the concept is a great one but Ron is not the best orator. He stumbles and does not deliver the optimum presentation. His insight and message is second to none but he needs someone else to be the front man. He could deliver some of the content but if you expect people to pay $10 bucks a month they better be getting 24/7 stimulation of information they cannot get elsewhere. This is my opinion so please don't hate me or neg rep me for speaking it. His message is awesome but he is not charismatic in delivering it. For $10 I would want to be able to sit down turn it on and watch a wealth of info. If he does not provide that it will fail.

[RickyJ]

Not all libertarians fall in lockstep on this issue. I believe in the protection of IP rights myself.

I'm glad I am not the only one here who believes in the protection of IP rights. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm glad I am not the only one here who believes in the protection of IP rights. :)
There are a number who believe that. And you're all wrong. :p :D

[enoch150]

You have to wonder what course history would have taken absent the tens of thousands of unauthorized printings of Common Sense.

Thomas Paine contracted with one printer to have a 1,000 copies printed, and then with another printer for a second run (the second run was at his own expense, because the first printer never paid Paine.) Within three months there were dozens of printers cranking them out. Paine estimated there were 100,000 - 150,000 printed in the first three months.

Although much less celebrated, copyright violation is almost as much a part of American tradition as tax evasion.

[ClydeCoulter]

You have to wonder what course history would have taken absent the tens of thousands of unauthorized printings of Common Sense.

Thomas Paine contracted with one printer to have a 1,000 copies printed, and then with another printer for a second run (the second run was at his own expense, because the first printer never paid Paine.) Within three months there were dozens of printers cranking them out. Paine estimated there were 100,000 - 150,000 printed in the first three months.

Although much less celebrated, copyright violation is almost as much a part of American tradition as tax evasion.

If it's worthy to be spoken into the ear, it's worthy to be copied and spread like grass-seed.

[BetterCallSaul]

If he's really interested in spreading the liberty message, he should be giving away most of the content for free. He should not care about the repeated sharing of the videos. He should get youtube ad revenue if he wants to keep costs covered, and ask for donations at the end of each episode, or an Amazon affiliate program, or selling value-added products through the show (e.g. autographed books from his collection or his guests, DRM protected bonus content, or tie-ins to live events).

As it stands now, this production fits one of the two standard operating procedures evident from RP's brand: (1) absolute incompetence in marketing, financial management, employee oversight, and concern for broad-appeal, or (2) only caring about growing RP's personal/family net worth by taking money from the gullible and fervent supporters who view him as a messiah.

--

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm glad I am not the only one here who believes in the protection of IP rights. :)

I wish I knew about such things when I was younger. I have given away so much over my lifetime. Fc=Sqrt(fh*fl) for a simple bandpass filter (as opposed to the approximation used at the time), Sine tables for 3D graphics (when processors were relatively slow), property and class discovery (currently realized in .Net), etc...

But, you know what. I grew up in the programming world where people wanted to keep secrets, and I never did want to do that, I taught a lot of new programmers how to avoid mistakes and to look for metaphors that could fit the problems they were trying to solve. Because, it was all 1's and 0's.

How the hell do you make 1's and 0's into something that the average user of software can understand? Only by applying metaphors to what could be done. You want to see what we used to look at day in and day out?



ld a,b
rrca
rrca
rrca
ld l,a ; store away in l.
and 3 ; mask bits for high byte.
add a,88 ; 88*256=22528, start of attributes.
ld h,a ; high byte done.
ld a,l ; get x*32 again.
and 224 ; mask low byte.
ld l,a ; put in l.
ld a,c ; get y displacement.
add a,l ; add to low byte.
ld l,a ; hl=address of attributes.
ld a,(hl)


Now, tell me, who's IP is that?

hell, ascii was an improvement for standardization and so was VESA for graphics (which I had a huge argument with IBM over)

Things are built upon things. That's one reason I can somewhat understand the "you didn't build that". Yeah, you did, but with tools that others built. "We are in this together". Later, I was convinced by a guy, who wrote the boot code and bios for a computer that we used in the company I worked for, to try the C language and it was wonderful. It abstracted a lot of what I did by hand in assembler to make calls to subroutines and it saved me a whole bunch of time. Then C++, as a pre-compiler for C, came out and I was testing some new boards for taking calls and detecting dtmf tones and the like and it made it easier to do multi-threaded stuff (but wasn't actually multithereaded in the sense of what we do today, longjump anyone?).

[KingNothing]

Good. If you want to see it, pay for it.

Such a poor, backward, strategy.

[speciallyblend]

Oh I agree. I just mean in the sense that someone signs up and all they got in the site is one piece of content. Much easier to sell the product if he had say 50 hours of prerecorded content to start. They could have produced some lecture series, maybe licensed some videos from others, etc. Right now all they have is one interview which I can get on youtube, and when they do the next one, I'll probably be able to get that one too.

I like the concept of it all, just doesn't seem like they got anyone on the team who has produced this sort of thing before. We'll see though

I guess i will wait to join then since the pirate video is why i was joining. I will wait to join once rpc gives me a free link to their whole video ,since we cannot let the ron paul.com motivate me to send ron paul 10 bucks. It wouldn't be right. Since the pirate video is what motivated me. Sounds like a bunch of old metallica band members complaining about pirated stuff.

I will join eventually but i want to see rpc giving us links to spread. This does no good if it is preaching to the choir. why wouldn't they use the models of rt or cenk?