I am kind of surprised that Apple doesn't finance a major movie to give it a go. It would increase their relevance and power if successful. Itunes could be the next best "Movie Theater".
That is exactly how publishing startups like Spotify and even individual artists and authors are succeeding. A girl can sell copies of her self-published book on Amazon and make $180,000 in a year, without a team of lawyers to chase down people that are sharing her book, no DRM or any other deterrent, simply because it is convenient for the consumer. It would have taken her years to get her work published had she gone through a traditional publisher, that is if she could find a literary agent that would even answer her correspondence. The point being there are market based approaches to IP that are far more successful than any kind of centralized enforcement effort.
I applaud and welcome any such improvements as described here. As I have stated numerous times during this debate. IP is so seriously flawed today due to bad laws, mainly due to extremely cumbersome money and banking laws which makes it virtually impossible to start a bank or payment service. As a consequence of this only NOW we are starting to something like Flattr, iTunes, Spotify and other similar solutions that imitate micropayment. With free banking I am positive that we would have seen micropayment systems as soon as before 2000. It is not impossible that when the WWW was built payment systems had been built right into the protocol without the prevalent banking laws. Today micropayment would have been just as mundane and common as email, and as a consequence ALL software, music and movies would have been on a digital payment platform at super-low prices. There would have been virtually zero piracy and no DRM.
To my knowledge no libertarians have ever pointed out the relationship between the bad state of IP and the bad money laws, because most people don't understand the relationship.
I look at the attitudes of Onar Åm and wonder if such a Free State Initiative might be better served by people with a more progressive vision.
Theft is not progressive by any standard.
How would companies like Microsoft fare doing business through channels made available through such a Free State? Software piracy is an integral to Microsoft's market entry strategy for emerging markets. What would they do? Arrest Microsoft's agents, or people that Microsoft is encouraging to pirate their wares? The level of regulation and enforcement would eventually make administrative efforts very top-heavy in such an environment.
It's hard to say exactly what would happen in a Free State, but generally speaking organized piracy would be struck down.
I am wonder what the law enforcement strategy for such a Free State would look like. Would there be one system for workers and another for the operators of multinational corporations?
There would be equality before the law.