51–60 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn’t. As law. It might be accepted as practice. They are different.
Examples of where it is not?
Asia-pac countries do not have this provision at all, unless enforced by US-trade agreements.
And frankly, I think IP should be taxed since holders rely on the government to protect it. If I have a house, it’s at least hypothetically possible that I can defend it myself. That’s not possible with intellectual property. So if holders are relying on that government to uphold its value, they should be expected to contribute proportionally to that value for the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, he does conflate a bunch of behaviour into IP. But that’s just his conflation. Monopolistic practices exist with or without IP laws, terms of service, etc. Take a look at some other industries: energy companies have protected fossil fuel exploitation and stifled research and adoption of nuclear and green alternatives. Finance industry have maintained monopoly and avoided regulation despite there being obvious ha…
It really seems you haven’t read the essay. He does not conflate them; he distinguishes between them, at length. I encourage you to read it.
- He intros by talking about copyright, DRM, terms of use, etc
- Then jumps to the fact that Opioid companies try to hook you with addiction, just like Facebook. (So what's that got to do with Copyright, DRM, Terms of use?)
- Then hints at network effects of "How can you leave Facebook if all your friends are there?" (What's that got to do with anything?)
- Then he talks about service lock-in which again has nothing to do with Intellectual Property. You are locked in to all sorts of things in your life as a consumer, that is a capitalistic practice the fact that software companies use IP as the way to pull the lock-in lever is kind of secondary to the point isn't it? Isn't the main point: Why do we accept lock-in at all? (Again he's conflated these, not separates them)
- He talks about Copyright like it's just the US... so what about GDPRs "Right to data portability?", that's the beginning of inter-op. Or Countries copyright exceptions for interop purposes? No mention of those. So not only has he conflated Monopolistic tendencies with IP, he then conflates "Global IP laws" with "US IP law"... which misrepresents the vast majority of the world. As I've mentioned in other comments, in the country I live in: there is no such thing as "Fair Use", you are allowed to copy things for certain protected reasons, and people can't even bring a case against you for those reasons (A subtle but important difference).
- Lets take the kindle example where he says (paraphrase) "Amazon have locked you in, and you are breaking the law if you attempt to undo it"... Well what if I live in a country that allows me the right to reverse engineer for the purposes of inter-op? I can (legally) hack that kindle to pieces... Now they might make that really hard, or even impossible... In a similar way that Oil companies have depressed the EV market and made it WAY harder to own an EV to an ICE... But IP isn't getting in the way here.
I offer WSB-- the assholiest of domains, yet one where that is an interesting question-- whose users are actually doing a better job of showing the world the corruption of their domain.
I shall endeavor to write a weird piece of Gnu fan fiction about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?
A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright is concerned with the (specific) expression of ideas... by definition if it is in your mind it’s unexpressed. So copyright cannot apply. I don’t quite follow what you’re worried about...
Th point of knowledge is being able to make use of it - express it. If knowlege cannot be legally expressed, it's useless and not really yours.
This kind of stuff happens all the time... Patents, are where this gets frustrating, where I can register a bunch of "expressions" of an idea and they get protected from execution... Then Software-patents are even worse in this realm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.
> So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? If by "books" you mean "copyright on books, as enforced against people rather than corporations[0]", then yes, yes 'they' are. 0: Nitpick: legal action against a corporation for printing something by request from a particular customer is legal action against that customer, the same as if you'd prosecuted 15'000$ that you st…
This is an excellent article; as always, Cory Doctorow succinctly and perceptively cuts to the core of the matter. From my own observations over recent years, I've come to the conclusion that the IP, copyright, patent and DRM issues that Doctorow discusses in this article are even worse than he has let on about (perhaps he's worried about overly frightening the horses and or is worried that his opponents would attemp…
But whichever system of ethics compels us to "catch up to China's manufacturing technology and output" and "smother the 'enemy' in an avalanche of production" (quotes mine) sounds more like a civilizational suicide pact than a vision for the future.
Our smothering of the planet with production is the most immediate existential threat we face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?
A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.
I feel like we're passively reading a piece about this rather than doing anything about it because Stallman never thought, "How ya gonna pay the bills," was an interesting question. I offer WSB-- the assholiest of domains, yet one where that is an interesting question-- whose users are actually doing a better job of showing the world the corruption of their domain. I shall endeavor to write a weird piece of Gnu fan f…