Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's software mistreats or harms the user

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#281

Post by kube-system »

nybble41 wrote: post #279
kube-system wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of places in the world recognize the right for a creator to exclusively reproduce their creative works for a period of time so that they may enjoy profit from their creativity. That may be semantically different than “ownership”, but is otherwise functionally irrelevant in the context of this conversation.

Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of the is/ought fallacy. You are saying that copyright laws exist. I am saying that they should not exist because they are unjust and logically incoherent. These points are not in conflict. The fact that copyright is semantically different from ownership is the entire point. Ownership and exclusive control over physical property have a just and rational basis in scarcity…

The concept of copyright absolutely does have a rational basis in scarcity. Creative works take a substantial investment of time and/or money to create.

The idea that creators shouldn't have the right to control their works is wildly radical -- even more than the FSF's view. Even the concept of copyleft relies on the right of the creator to impose licensing on their creative works. If copyrights didn't exist, licenses that require source to be shared, like GPL, couldn't exist.

You're well entitled to your opinion, but I'm glad the world doesn't work that way, because things like the restrictive clauses in GPL have been very good for the world.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#282

Post by greyhair »

judge2020 wrote: post #15

> Google/Alphabet intentionally broke Revolv home automatic control products that depended on a server to function, by shutting down the server. The lesson is, reject all such products. Insist on self-contained computers that run free software! The last two sentences seem a little pretentious. The people who bought these products don't know (or want to take the time to learn) how to use git or edit config files or in…

Hubitat comes very close. Once it is set up, it neer has to call home other than for updates.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#283

Post by nybble41 »

kube-system wrote: post #281
nybble41 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of the is/ought fallacy. You are saying that copyright laws exist. I am saying that they should not exist because they are unjust and logically incoherent. These points are not in conflict. The fact that copyright is semantically different from ownership is the entire point. Ownership and exclusive control over physical property have a just and rational basis in scarcity…

The concept of copyright absolutely does have a rational basis in scarcity. Creative works take a substantial investment of time and/or money to create. The idea that creators shouldn't have the right to control their works is wildly radical -- even more than the FSF's view. Even the concept of copyleft relies on the right of the creator to impose licensing on their creative works. If copyrights didn't exist, license…

> Creative works take a substantial investment of time and/or money to create.

That's the labor which is scarce. Not copies of the copyrighted work. I already said people who create things should be paid for that labor—or more to the point, have to be paid if you want them to continue to create things. That does not imply that they deserve to control what others do with the work after it's been produced and published. That was just an expedient method chosen to encourage "the sciences" (though in practice it's been applied more to entertainment). There are better ways.

> If copyrights didn't exist, licenses that require source to be shared, like GPL, couldn't exist.

The GPL was created as a counterbalance to copyright. In a world without copyright there never would have been any need for it. Moreover, permissive licenses like MIT and BSD have had their share of success even without a requirement to share source code for modifications.

> The idea that creators shouldn't have the right to control their works is wildly radical -- even more than the FSF's view.

It's not really all that radical. Copyright itself is a relatively recent invention and was originally designed as a means of censorship and protectionism for publishers. Before that there was no practical means for an author to control distribution of their work, or any expectation that they should be able to do so. The manual duplication of notable works was routine, and you wouldn't find those scribes begging the author's permission.

In more modern terms, the popularity of file sharing certainly suggests that a very large fraction of the population doesn't act like they believe authors should be able to control the distribution of their works once they're published. Copyright is mainly popular among those who directly benefit from it, much like any other subsidy.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#284

Post by kube-system »

nybble41 wrote: post #283
kube-system wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of copyright absolutely does have a rational basis in scarcity. Creative works take a substantial investment of time and/or money to create. The idea that creators shouldn't have the right to control their works is wildly radical -- even more than the FSF's view. Even the concept of copyleft relies on the right of the creator to impose licensing on their creative works. If copyrights didn't exist, license…

> Creative works take a substantial investment of time and/or money to create. That's the labor which is scarce. Not copies of the copyrighted work. I already said people who create things should be paid for that labor—or more to the point, have to be paid if you want them to continue to create things. That does not imply that they deserve to control what others do with the work after it's been produced and published…

> I already said people who create things should be paid for that labor—or more to the point, have to be paid if you want them to continue to create things.

> There are better ways.

Like what, paying for labor instead of the work itself? That may work well (and already does) for more commoditized/custom-purpose/one-time-use creative works, but how do we apply something like that to something like recorded-media entertainment? Prepay for Taylor Swift's next album on Kickstarter?

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#285

Post by nybble41 »

kube-system wrote: post #284
nybble41 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creative works take a substantial investment of time and/or money to create. That's the labor which is scarce. Not copies of the copyrighted work. I already said people who create things should be paid for that labor—or more to the point, have to be paid if you want them to continue to create things. That does not imply that they deserve to control what others do with the work after it's been produced and published…

> I already said people who create things should be paid for that labor—or more to the point, have to be paid if you want them to continue to create things. > There are better ways. Like what, paying for labor instead of the work itself? That may work well (and already does) for more commoditized/custom-purpose/one-time-use creative works, but how do we apply something like that to something like recorded-media enter…

> Like what, paying for labor instead of the work itself?

Yes, exactly. There is no reason why a Kickstarter or Patreon model wouldn't work for recorded-media entertainment. Those approaches have already been used for things which are much more labor-intensive than music albums.

Artists with an established brand and fan following have some additional options, such as limited-edition merchandise or signed prints. Scarce physical goods that can't just be duplicated because their value is derived from their providence.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#286

Post by mav3rick »

tripzilch wrote: post #262
solipsism wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Overton window describes what the public will accept as "sane" (to use your term). You're free to disagree with the rest of the world, of course. But you might want to focus on trying to shift the Overton window. What you're doing in this comment is simply asserting that you disagree with everyone else.

The disagreement is not that autocomplete with a remote backend is a keylogger, that's factual. It's about calling it malware right? Because you seem to be asserting what "everyone else" thinks. If I ask non-technical people about this autocomplete feature and whether they would like to disable it (assuming they have this option), after explaining it sends every keystroke to Google, they (generally) will reluctantly…

You can choose many competitors to their products. Google wins because in many cases they are superior. Stop peddling this myth that consumers are forced to use a free thing.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#287

Post by lazyasciiart »

nybble41 wrote: post #277
lazyasciiart wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If I don't send you the file, you can't play it at all. So DRM has increased what you can do.

> Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If you're going to claim control over my computer in the process, I would prefer that you not send me the file. If the price is accepting DRM then it would be better for everyone if the file never existed.

I can still not send you the file if I have DRM. Now you are keeping control of your computer by not using any files with DRM, and arguing that nobody else should be given those options.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#288

Post by Dylan16807 »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #287
nybble41 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If you're going to claim control over my computer in the process, I would prefer that you not send me the file. If the price is accepting DRM then it would be better for everyone if the file never existed.

I can still not send you the file if I have DRM. Now you are keeping control of your computer by not using any files with DRM, and arguing that nobody else should be given those options.

There are lots of freedoms you can't contract away. It's not particularly odd to view DRM with that same lens.

And as a practical matter, while many services require DRM when it's easy to do so, in a world without DRM almost none would shut down.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#289

Post by jancsika »

notyourday wrote: post #123
jancsika wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. A Luddite would argue that the technology (NB: not the implementation or design but the very concept) takes something away from quality, morality, and/or spirituality of life. Thus, Luddite Stallman would refuse any help from anyone using any kind of handheld communication device including walkie talkies, free software laptops over wireless access points, etc. Stallman is…

Luddites were not against the technology. They were against a specific kind technology that in their view harmed them and a society in whole. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

Why are you trying to coerce the commonly accepted meaning of Luddite back into the original historical meaning?

If the OP were for some reason referring to the original meaning, why would OP have prefaced it with "it pains me to say this, but?" Comparing Stallman to people who objected to particular technologies on moral grounds would be mundane and not require an apology.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#290

Post by notyourday »

jancsika wrote: post #289
notyourday wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luddites were not against the technology. They were against a specific kind technology that in their view harmed them and a society in whole. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

Why are you trying to coerce the commonly accepted meaning of Luddite back into the original historical meaning? If the OP were for some reason referring to the original meaning, why would OP have prefaced it with "it pains me to say this, but?" Comparing Stallman to people who objected to particular technologies on moral grounds would be mundane and not require an apology.

I am the OP.

It pains me to say that RMS is a Luddite. In a correct, historical meaning of the word -- to him technology should go a specific way. Just like it was to Luddites. Society disagreed. Just like it disagreed with Luddites. Luddites were loud ( in the context of those that listened to them ). He is loud ( in the context of those who listen to him). Luddites were wrong, largely because they just picked a hill to die on and they died on that hill. He is going to end up the same way. And it pains me to say that.

Post reply on HN