@icedquinn@galena@aven >i don't think that's true. MS doesn't benefit from government protecting them from startups.
You're so wrong. Imagine a startup selling better re-packaged version of Windows without tracking, AI garbage, and other crap. And with proper support. Right now this is impossible precisely due to government protection.
@aven@icedquinn@galena@newt either way, I don't think it's of much use to get lost in definitions. Intellectual property is a wrong idea no matter if it's capitalism or not.
@icedquinn@galena@newt >lazze fare wasn't on the table Why not? We're talking about what's wrong with the current system. Things other than the current system must be on the table.
@newt@galena@aven there are industries where the government quite literally prevents you from starting up new businesses in the industry. such as with medicine where there are millions of dollars of fees and special approvals by boards staffed with pfizer employees required.
this is just some tired pirate party line about copyright. its hardly the government stopping you from writing a new OS. the other case, however, actually doe stop you from just making a new drug.
@newt@galena@aven copyright only grants a monopoly to minting new copies. right of first sale dictates once you sell it, that's it. you lose control over it.
so yes, you should be able to buy and modify as many copies of windows as you want. just not print new ones.
@icedquinn@galena@aven is this a "you wouldn't download a car" kind of argument? Because I absolutely would.
When I buy a chair, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to deconstruct it and make new chairs with the same design. Or maybe slightly altered for more comfyness. Why should a copy of Windows be any different? And if Microsoft isn't willing to supply the market with version of Windows without Cortana or telemetry, given that there is an existing demand, there is literally no reason why nobody else shouldn't do this in their stead.
@newt@galena@aven because copyright has to deal with exclusive access to producing new copies. the linux developers discarded that right deliberately.
now if you were making hackintoshes with purchased copies of the OS, and selling the device, and Apple got the government to stop that, which kinda did happen, i would agree that's no good (right of first sale and all that; you didn't violate the right to *copy*)
@newt@galena@aven i mean. yes, you can't just make copies of other people's software to sell? and i'm not entirely sure if that's a bad thing [in a world where we are going to have people sell software (which we probably shouldn't do)]
@icedquinn@galena@aven no, you don't understand. What I mean is literally taking a copy of Windows, stripping crap from it, adding good stuff, and re-selling it.
@icedquinn@lain@galena@newt even just keeping copyright/patents at their current amount of expansion seems like a pipe-dream. They continually expand and extend in a form of inflation. See the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act".
In my view, the core problem is that the culture still views patents and copyright laws as a moral good: the more of them the better. The opposite is actually the case, and the "garage inventor" argument for patents imo is ridiculous as the average/typical case is them being held back by broadly worded patents. The 3d-printing explosion only took place because of patent expiry for a device that never saw much traction. It's like saying that playing the lottery can be profitable for a few who play it, so it's a net good for all who play it. (I'm not saying that's what you're arguing)
Law and politics is downstream from culture, and the sentiment of "that's just the way it is" is suppressing reform. The insane RIAA and MPAA stuff has helped culturally. But there's this persistent myth that the big companies would go broke and people would starve, even if the laws just slow their expansion.
@lain i have a complicated thing about that. eventually yes, we could get rid of all of it. maybe.
in the short term--it's too broad now. patents were never intended to apply to math and historically were not allowed to apply to math. copyright is labeled "to further the arts." but was extended to infinity. we can't nuke it entirely [in current circumstances] because, well, if you don't want entertainers being able to support themselves anymore i guess you could :blobcatdunno:
copyright itself doesn't really stop people from becoming new authors and artists, but it does need to be heavily reduced back down to a reasonable level.
patents idk i don't like them. argument to be made that it gives inventors something to bait investment with, but the amount this actually works is much less. it actually does cause some problems, there's a lot less evidence we need to keep them.