Quote from: Carlton Banks on April 20, 2016, 04:46:46 PM

Quote from: BruceSwanson on April 20, 2016, 03:59:05 PM

And apps will allow writers and photographers to quickly and cheaply register their keystrokes and pixels on the BTClockchain.

[T]his point I think is going to prove problematic for artists and creative types. It just sounds like a really expensive (and unprofitable) way to prop up an untenable concept: intellectual property. I can say "time machine" or "unicorn", but they don't exist, and neither does intellectual property (since about 1993, anyway). These people will quickly realise that coming up with a workable model for selling their skills is what's needed, not clinging onto a paradigm that was only possible for a short ~75 year period. Some already are, crowdfunding, giveaways at live performances etc.

A fast 'n easy BTClockchain data-registration app would not substitute for formal copyright protection. But it would or could be the basis for applying for such protection. From my perspective, your comment about such a process being expensive and unprofitable applies to some aspects of our economy, not expensive and unprofitable for users. For example, if a researcher could in real time hash and copy/paste to the BTClockchain some critical data from an experiment, that means less chances for profitable theft from a co-researcher or competing company. It could be expensive for competitors to make use of that data for their own ends because now they could be obligated to pay for it. Even if the originator did not sue, public knowledge alone of the would-be theft would be harmful for the would-be thieves.

In modern societies there is a lot of such theft which can save thieves a lot of money and time. The old 1964 Air France advertising slogan Come home to [Paris, Nice, Europe, etc.] was stolen from the writer who thought of it -- and right during a meeting in front of numerous disinterested observers. When the writer first suggested it, his boss instantly took the ball and ran with it. The writer got no credit because there was no way to prove ownership or act of creativity. (A version of this incident was incorporated into an episode of Mad About You). But today, suppose a writer incorporated a possible slogan onto the blockchain before the next meeting, and made that fact known. If the idea turned out to be a good one, well, that's protection of intellectual property, and we can see from that example that intellectual property has its good uses. What's needed is not less intellectual property. What's needed is more. It would be expensive for some individuals and enterprises, but profitable for others. Society would benefit.

What BTClockchain data-registration promises to do is democratize intellectual property. Giveaways and live performances are one thing -- The Grateful Dead allowed audience members to openly and professionally record performances. But the band's lawyers would have sued anyone who tried to sell those recordings as official offerings. Allowing the recordings was probably just good PR.

As for Hinrikus, Hearn, and Dimon, my guess is that none of them were thinking of data registration when they announced Bitcoin was either over or doomed to be. Which will be very bad PR for them.