4 ms·

You could make the argument that this law is only required because copyright, patents, licensing, and other regulations have gone far too far already. But the g

You could make the argument that this law is only required because copyright, patents, licensing, and other regulations have gone far too far already. But the genie's out of the bottle. Seems like a good idea to me, too.

mindslight 10y ago
I'm pro open devices and anti imaginary property myself, but I don't see your argument. The only way I can connect your points is that perhaps without imaginary property, companies wouldn't have developed such a culture of secrecy and control - software would have stayed being seen as an "uninteresting" requirement of making a complete device. But with the ever-increasing complexity of software and the inherent irreversibility of compilation, I don't think that era would have lasted long regardless.
- guitarbill 10y ago
  Many forms of limiting what you can do to a device are DRM based, e.g. printer ink. And you can't legally circumvent DRM to enhance/restore what devices are actually capable of, not for any technical reason though. As for "complexity of software", it often isn't. What's complex are all the software patents and the licensing. I think you see a similar thing hobbling a lot of wireless hardware, or interop with wireless hardware. I get that many things now have software in them, but some things still need to be treated as a tool instead of a "service" for which you are granted a license. And if it's a one-time payment, being able to update the license whenever a company wants doesn't feel right either. Good steps towards this include this law, or the ruling in Germany (I think) that EULAs are invalid when presented to the user after the point of purchase.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    > things still need to be treated as a tool instead of a "service" for which you are granted a license I fully agree with your normative point. Especially as more of the world is computerized, humans are left powerless if they do not have control over the computers they "own". I'm coming from the same place as you here, but... > Many forms of limiting what you can do to a device are DRM based, e.g. printer ink. And you can't legally circumvent DRM to enhance/restore what devices are actually capable of, not for any technical reason though. Sure, but many are limited by technical means. For example, there are many phones for which custom ROMs are not available, either because there hasn't been enough interest in rerooting the device or supplying developer time to create the alternative distribution. There's a lot of interest in doing so for a new popular device, but as it keeps getting revved and additional manufactures enter the market, enthusiasm is diluted and dissipates. And while manufacturers save costs through standardization (eg Linux/Android), they also work to decommodify their products to keep from entering a race to the bottom. We're fighting an uphill battle, fundamentally because understanding (compression) is harder than execution (compiling). Furthermore, devices have become cheap due to economies of scale, which inherently supports the centralization that leads to that decommodification. It's hard to see that we'll ever have a cottage industry of electronics production that isn't drawing from some heavily-centralized component source. I'm not saying the situation is hopeless, and obviously there is an equilibrium that we are in. But one must acknowledge these fundamental gradients if one wants to have any hope of addressing the situation in a pro-freedom manner.

mindslight 10y ago

I'm pro open devices and anti imaginary property myself, but I don't see your argument. The only way I can connect your points is that perhaps without imaginary property, companies wouldn't have developed such a culture of secrecy and control - software would have stayed being seen as an "uninteresting" requirement of making a complete device. But with the ever-increasing complexity of software and the inherent irreversibility of compilation, I don't think that era would have lasted long regardless.

guitarbill 10y ago
Many forms of limiting what you can do to a device are DRM based, e.g. printer ink. And you can't legally circumvent DRM to enhance/restore what devices are actually capable of, not for any technical reason though. As for "complexity of software", it often isn't. What's complex are all the software patents and the licensing. I think you see a similar thing hobbling a lot of wireless hardware, or interop with wireless hardware. I get that many things now have software in them, but some things still need to be treated as a tool instead of a "service" for which you are granted a license. And if it's a one-time payment, being able to update the license whenever a company wants doesn't feel right either. Good steps towards this include this law, or the ruling in Germany (I think) that EULAs are invalid when presented to the user after the point of purchase.
- mindslight 10y ago
  > things still need to be treated as a tool instead of a "service" for which you are granted a license I fully agree with your normative point. Especially as more of the world is computerized, humans are left powerless if they do not have control over the computers they "own". I'm coming from the same place as you here, but... > Many forms of limiting what you can do to a device are DRM based, e.g. printer ink. And you can't legally circumvent DRM to enhance/restore what devices are actually capable of, not for any technical reason though. Sure, but many are limited by technical means. For example, there are many phones for which custom ROMs are not available, either because there hasn't been enough interest in rerooting the device or supplying developer time to create the alternative distribution. There's a lot of interest in doing so for a new popular device, but as it keeps getting revved and additional manufactures enter the market, enthusiasm is diluted and dissipates. And while manufacturers save costs through standardization (eg Linux/Android), they also work to decommodify their products to keep from entering a race to the bottom. We're fighting an uphill battle, fundamentally because understanding (compression) is harder than execution (compiling). Furthermore, devices have become cheap due to economies of scale, which inherently supports the centralization that leads to that decommodification. It's hard to see that we'll ever have a cottage industry of electronics production that isn't drawing from some heavily-centralized component source. I'm not saying the situation is hopeless, and obviously there is an equilibrium that we are in. But one must acknowledge these fundamental gradients if one wants to have any hope of addressing the situation in a pro-freedom manner.