4 ms·

We agree, that technology does not yet exist which is why Disney can screw people over unilaterally. >Disney could change to not routing in that way Yes but t

by Kranar 6y ago

We agree, that technology does not yet exist which is why Disney can screw people over unilaterally. >Disney could change to not routing in that way Yes but the point is that if the DAO comes to represent a large volume of intellectual property, then the DAO becomes valuable in and of itself. If Disney chooses one day to no longer participate that's perfectly fine, another company can come and take Disney's place and distribute whatever movies, books, music is represented by the DAO. DAOs, as they exist today, have mechanisms in place to allow new participants to enter as well as ways to kick out existing participants in much the same way a contract has such mechanisms. >I mean you can wave your hands about some theoretical system... This is akin to a thought terminating cliche. Creative discussions about future technologies are valuable ways to stimulate ideas and I know just personally as a business owner I have benefited tremendously from them. If you don't find them valuable you can choose not to participate in it from the get go, but it's kind of awkward to start a discussion about the future and then turn around and dismiss the conversation as a whole. Having said that, objecting to this kind of technology by pointing out potential problems and concerns is absolutely valuable and should be welcomed... my only objection is dismissing a conversation altogether whose very nature is exploratory and hence vague and open ended.

ska 6y ago
> This is akin to a thought terminating cliche. I disagree, because you trimmed to me the most important part " none of them are actionable". I find these conversations interesting and sometimes educational, which is great. But the hard part of such a change is generally not technological, so when it evolves hand-waving about potential future technologies and then tweaks to them rapidly becomes less interesting because it avoids the core of the problems. Technological discussion involving mechanisms to discuss evaluating/exchanging/etc. property right that does not at least try address the fundamental practical sources and control mechanisms of those rights seems doomed to be superficial.

by Kranar 6y ago

ska 6y ago

> This is akin to a thought terminating cliche. I disagree, because you trimmed to me the most important part " none of them are actionable". I find these conversations interesting and sometimes educational, which is great. But the hard part of such a change is generally not technological, so when it evolves hand-waving about potential future technologies and then tweaks to them rapidly becomes less interesting because it avoids the core of the problems. Technological discussion involving mechanisms to discuss evaluating/exchanging/etc. property right that does not at least try address the fundamental practical sources and control mechanisms of those rights seems doomed to be superficial.