OP and all your down votes are from morons. Don’t fret

OP acknowledged the amount itself is of course debatable, and is an entirely separate topic. Yet here we are, again. The concept of whatever you think is a valid argument is moot, a totally separate topic, and there’s no argument to be invalidated in the first place.

OP even acknowledged this and this shit is still top reply. Dumb fucks everywhere.

So, it’s basically socialist UBI for the downtrodden, like almost all of the military.

He got feet inside just past the security gate and then fell down due to nothing. He got a visual on nobody in particular and named nobody in particular and there is no conclusive evidence he fired any bullets. He might as well have stayed home and played in his yard, not even close.

No purportedly related attack seemingly has been directed or credible. They all were terrible and not even remotely close, so it’s either fake, unrelated, or a false flag.

Doesn’t apply to streaming media. You’re free to cache your media if you can store it, since you own it, but that’s not true of all people and all media. How does steam verify you own something from gog if gog shuts down? They don’t unless a distributed ledger exists, then they could.

Just FYI, it’s a fun mental exercise to dream up I suppose. I don’t have all the answers and if it were easy it’d already exist.

You have to subscribe to the host. Your token gives them legal authority to get it and stream to you. In the original example, you can buy from anyone, and the token is auth’d by warner brothers and ultimately they got paid for it. In theory, the original distributor auths the token and gets money for their product directly from consumers instead of via corporate license or profit share. The difference is, any host would have legal authority to stream it and in theory they could get it from any other host in the network at that point, not just the original distributor, because you have a valid ownership token. This means they cannot cancel on you or force you to move hosts, like they can today. And again, it requires both a tech and legal framework to work, but it is fundamentally different than anything that exists today. You’d be legally free to cache a copy if you want, since you own it, or just cache it from your subscribed streaming host. Nobody should care how you get it, just that you are allowed to have it and you paid for it and you pay for streaming service if you want to stream. The service itself should be vastly cheaper, because they don’t have a large media cost, just network and storage costs. The host network would likely have to run on some version of torrent with chain Auth integration. The original distributor can’t be the final arbiter of ownership nor the only host or expected to host forever, as they could dissolve and media could end up in limbo. Again, every detail isn’t needed, we’re not solving this over night, but a distributed ledger of ownership is step 1 of how you buy something and have everyone have even a chance of knowing you own it without both a central authority and the ability for them to unilaterally take it away. This could apply to your copy of Robocop and your stock in Amazon.

Fundamental mistake, not good people, indoctrinated bad people.

It allows you to easily move to another host which isn’t otherwise possible. Your criticisms are endemic to all media, so are moot. You personally don’t have to stream, you can buy a physical copy and rip it and store it locally, be my guest.

No, it seems you and many others fundamentally misunderstand that a blockchain is a distributed ledger as primary functionality, not a data store as such. It stores proof of ownership, that you purchased it from an authorized registered distributor, that’s it. Just to be thorough, all ledgers require further external consensus for functionality.

In this case, a service (who stores and sends the big file) must recognize your token as ownership. What this solves is that when movie x is bought from Amazon and moves to Streamio and then moves to Paramount, you can load your token into Paramount and Paramount can see your token was created by warner brothers, so they can legally serve you Blazing Saddles without contacting Amazon or Streamio, which since has gone out of business.

Today, when they move licenses or whatever else happens, you lose whatever you bought. With a distributed ledger you automatically have proof of purchase to any entity that is able and willing (or legally forced) to use that ledger for validation, and no single entity can just erase your ownership like they can and do today.

Games are just story+art+button timing+math. Mmo’s almost entirely remove button timing, and what is left is extremely formulaic. Given that, number go up isn’t worth anyone’s thousands of hours, and neither is the overall content. I know, as I had the hours and the same epiphany.

I think there are 2 types of drm, one is invasive and the other is permissive. Everything needs some sort of Auth and permission drm, and usually it sits in a company dB and if they go under or remove it, you lose Auth. I think that type of system can be better under a blockchain model, moving universal ownership to a decentralized ledger. Services still must recognize the ledger as valid, but then no single provider is the arbiter of your ownership and Auth.

Yes it needs support, as almost all blockchains do, they are public consensus models. All it needs is for a token to connect to a specific piece of media. You prove ownership of that token and the streaming service honors your ownership. You move steaming services? They still honor your ownership. Likely also needs legislative support to enforce honoring the token and enforce studios to provide same access to all distributors.

This is where blockchains can be useful. Buy once, valid everywhere always with a little support.

But his implied question is deep, what amount of retaliation is the correct or maximum amount? Not just in this case, but any case.

Is it mentally healthy to have hope? Yes. Is it mentally healthy to have irrational validation of insufficiency? No. It’s circumstantial, but you must do better than the minimum criteria for basic success.

Imagine a world with no libraries, no internet search, no wiki… They turn it all off after gobbling it all up, just to sell it back, because they end up with all information, for sale.

You don’t start it from scratch, you take away the profit motive by folding it into the political machine as a utility. People still work there, it’s still run in a similar fashion, but you take away the stocks and speculation and decision making and regulate it back to the people either via wages or 100% profit tax rate.

Groups generally do not generate the initial idea, don’t execute the initial vision, and are less agile to do so. There should be some incentive for individuals to drive their ideas for a time, and to benefit from that disproportionately, again for a time. Businesses need to go through a few stages: startup regulation to establish a fair profit window, evaluation of an ongoing competitive window, and lastly a review of consolidation and convergence and conversion to a public utility. The idea that some system can be setup such that everyone benefits all the time from some individual’s IP is pie in the sky, but we can certainly greatly improve the hoarding issue. The absolute most important part of that is to decouple big business ownership and power from an individual back into the government, since that’s where the excess influence ends up anyway.