8 ms·

Judging from a lot of the comments on this topic and others many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected. When someone creates a platform

Judging from a lot of the comments on this topic and others many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected. When someone creates a platform (Heroku, Facebook, Apple's App Store) they have a right to lock it down. If you don't believe in that don't buy the product!

cookiecaper 16y ago
It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires. Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. Why should there be laws that allow hardware makers to say "THIS COMPUTER CAN ONLY RUN MOBILE OS 5.5; ALL USERS OF NON-MOBILE OS 5.5 WILL BE PROSECUTED"? What about (cooling it on the caps) "it is illegal to publish the words etched into the bottom of this oven. Do not read the words on the bottom of this oven"? Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. I think we crossed that threshold a long time ago and now we've gone way overboard into the other extreme; our current laws actively discourage creativity, which is the exact opposite of their purpose. Why doesn't your post say, "It seems many companies don't believe that those that purchase their hardware have a right to use it according to their own dictates. If these companies don't believe in that, don't mass produce and sell your product to everyone!"? Surely massive distribution with no restriction on buyers is a horrible way to keep a secret.
- roel_v 16y ago
  EULA's have nothing to do with copyright, it's plain contract law. If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed? If I am a shoe manufacturer with local retail outlets you and I agree that I will sell you my shoes for reselling overseas, but part of the agreement is that you won't sell them locally; should that be allowed? If you and I agree that I will sell you a device but you will only use it under certain circumstances, should that be allowed? I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations. Let people make their own agreements and then let the market decide. The only role the government has herein is to enforce contracts - what good are contracts when one party can decide retroactively that they don't like the terms anymore, and oh I don't want to cancel the contract, no I want to have my pie and eat it, too?
  - Osmose 16y ago
    Technically yes, except with a PS3 your purchase amounts to agreement with the EULA; it's tucked away in a manual that no one reads, or at best is shown to the user on a screen during setup which is simply clicked through. Most people don't realize that they aren't buying the physical machine, they're buying the right to use the physical machine in approved ways only (this may be technically untrue, but it's certainly what it amounts to). I find the fact that a contract can be agreed to in these ways unethical, especially when they are hidden under the guise of buying a physical product.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? Some software makes you scroll down before you can click 'agree'; is this not enough? Should it show you the dialog for a certain amount of time? Or maybe software shouldn't be sold online, you'd always have to go to a store, where a clerk forces you to read and then quizzes you on the content before selling you the software? You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
      - narag 16y ago
        But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced? That's total nonsense, at least in my country. Any abusive clause would be nulified, even if the rest of the contract is valid. You can't put in a contract anything. You can't give up rights that the law gives you no matter what. I.e. you can't sign to be a slave.
        16y ago
- eru 16y ago
  > Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. This is often cited as the reason for copyright. Was this the actual historical reason, or just some windowdressing after the fact? (And the wording of the law in America doesn't count. It that argument hold any water, the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't be so funny.) Wikipedia has something like "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers." and similar lines.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    If you want more on the history of copyright in general, I suggest looking up the works of one William Patry. He's written extensively on the subject, was the former general counsel for Google, and now writes on the subject at his blog: http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/ http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/ And I know it's not the first copyright law (we flaunted it for years before developing our own), but the reason copyright is allowed in the USA is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
    - eru 16y ago
      I know that line from the preamble of the Copyright Clause, is cited in every discussion about copyright that involves at least one American. But I doubt it's the actual reason. To come back to my example, the USA PATRIOT act starts with "[An act] to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [...]" but do you think that's the only reason they passed it? (I don't believe the USA PATRIOT act is a good example, it's just the first I could think of at the top of my head. If you look at some acts that introduce tariffs, you'll probably see more obvious hypocrisy, where it's clear that the act was introduced because some lobbyist got their say.
- tzs 16y ago
  > Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. It depends. Did they sell me the oven at below cost, and their plan for not losing money overall depends on people not using the ovens for brownies? If that were the case, I'd consider buying the oven and satisfying my brownie desires some other way.
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    The argument of below-cost hardware sales comes up frequently, yet I'm not at all sure it's true. Nintendo have certainly gone on record as saying the Wii was _never_ sold for below hardware cost (don't have a reference to hand, sorry); I don't follow the scene enough any more to know the general current position but it's far from a given that hardware sales are subsidised by software. Frankly I'd much rather see the whole thing opened up and made more reasonable and competitive, into a proper market. Microsoft don't have any say over who releases what for Windows, Apple don't have a say over who releases what for OS X (though are heading down a slippery slope with the App Store following iOS...) - I see no legitimate reason for the games market to be different. If the hardware cost goes up, fine - we're still below the real-terms cost of the earlyish 16 bit era.
    - tzs 16y ago
      Yes, the Wii hardware was sold at a profit. The PS3, though, was definitely at a loss. People took it apart, and the total cost of parts at the best prices available in available in large volume was well over the retail price (not all of which goes to Sony). edit: details: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars
      - eftpotrm 16y ago
        Interesting, particularly as it suggests the XBox 360 has been sold at a profit for at least four years now. So, of the three major home systems (as distinct from portables), at least two are being sold at a profit, further reducing the argument in favour of restricting their use due to recovering initial costs.
maeon3 16y ago
It's about freedom to tinker, It is wrong to seize some hackers computers and sue him because he was able to figure out how a device he owned worked. I don't want to live in a world where I become a criminal for even attempting to figure out how MY stuff works.
- dools 16y ago
  Well, in practice you only get prosecuted if you publish your results on the internet. This guy could have figured out how his stuff works all he wants, and even shown his friends, with impugnity.
  - pyre 16y ago
    That may be, but selectively enforced laws are evil by their very nature.
    - atomical 16y ago
      You conceded your argument but received more upvotes than the other person. Uh?
      - pyre 16y ago
        I didn't concede my point. Selectively enforced laws are intrinsically evil. Just because they aren't being applied to evil purposes right now is irrelevant. A gun is designed to kill people, and I can't argue against that fact by claiming that at present guns are only used to crack nuts open with their handles. Just because a gun isn't being used to kill people right now does nothing to make it any less deadly.
  - mmt 16y ago
    if you publish your results on the internet. This is also evil in and of itself, running afoul of free speech rights.
tomjen3 16y ago
If you can't see the difference between the examples you posted and the ps3, you shouldn't be posting on hn.
amock 16y ago
I think people believe that once you buy hardware you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
baddox 16y ago
It's not just "many geeks" that don't believe intellectual property should be protected. The software engineering community in general concludes that treating software like property is illogical and perhaps harmful. At least around where I'm from, software engineers and computer scientists are explicitly taught in their ethics seminars that the entire analogy of "intellectual property" has serious logical and ethical problems inherent in it.
- parasubvert 16y ago
  Uh, no. There's no consensus on the ethical or illogical nature of IP. It would be extremely biased and wrong for CS majors or engineers to be "taught" that IP is illogical. There's a big difference between being supportive of FOSS and believing that intellectual property should not be protected. As far as I can tell the majority of computer scientists and software engineers (even here on HN or on Slashdot) believe that some form of copyright should exist. The problem in the US and the DMCA is with the perpetual extension of term lengths, and the prohibition of tinkering. Software patents, on the other hand, are increasingly opposed in the mainstream. Let's also not forget that there are generations of geeks that don't care for open source, and don't contribute to it. It is going to be decades before they retire.
  - baddox 16y ago
    Firstly, what I'm saying doesn't necessarily have anything to do FOSS. In a world without IP protection, you could still release/sell software without disclosing the source code. In fact, the GPL for example relies on IP protection laws to even function.
trotsky 16y ago
With opinions like yours it's a miracle we have libraries.
- atomical 16y ago
  Not a very clever one liner but I'll bite. My opinion appears to be in the minority on here and possibly elsewhere as well. What gave you the impression that my opinion is so important to the debate as to make it a miracle. I could see if I was a congressman or in government you might think that, but I am not.
  - chc 16y ago
    Your argument here — against the parent's position that the ideas you're advocating are poorly thought out and impractical — appears to be "I am allowed to have poorly thought-out and impractical opinions because I'm not in the government." That's not really much of a defense of your position.
    - atomical 16y ago
      It appears to be no such thing. Nowhere did I suggest my opinion was poorly thought out or impractical. I suggested that the parent's position was overstated and that people such as myself have very little to do with public policy.
      - chc 16y ago
        He suggested that, by pointing out that if the country followed your ideas consistently, libraries would be outlawed even though they're generally regarded as a very good thing. Your rebuttal was that you aren't in the government.
Andys 16y ago
If I buy physical goods, I have an expectation that I completely own it and can do with it whatever I want, and can share my experience completely with others. What Sony is trying to say is that when you buy a PS3 you are sort of renting it, and they still own what you can and can't do with it. Perhaps because they are selling it at a loss so they can make money when you buy games. I think that in this case they should NOT sell the device to consumers but lease/rent it, because that is the agreement they are really looking for.
- temugen 16y ago
  It may seem like renting to you, but unfortunately those licensing terms you agree to when you open a package of new hardware or install a piece of software, are legal. It is a shame, but if you don't agree to it, don't buy and use the product. Sony, in this case, has strong reasons for wanting to protect their console. Namely because of the contracts they hold with certain chip makers, and because they are expecting profits from playstation games to offset production costs of the console, of which there are none if people are buying loads of them to run their clusters.
  - christoph 16y ago
    I didn't see any contract when I opened my PS3?
  - Prisen 16y ago
    If we're only concerned about strict legality, EULAs are on very shaky legal ground. For example, EULAs that you don't sign _before_ buying the product have no legal standing at all in the EU. Sony has already tried suing PSJailbreak in Spain, they lost and had to pay damages.
alexqgb 16y ago
This is a joke, right? I can't believe you're seriously comparing online platforms owned and operated by their creators to a hardware platform that's neither.
- atomical 16y ago
  Just because it is a physical product doesn't make it any less protected. So, yes, I am seriously comparing them. If that's all you have to add I can't believe you wasted your time writing that.
  - chc 16y ago
    It doesn't make it any less protected, but it does change whose rights come into play here. Apple owns the App Store servers, and thus you're violating its property rights if you hack them. I own my computer, so the one with property rights to protect is me.
    - atomical 16y ago
      You do not own the software, thus you violate their property right if you "hack" it.
praptak 16y ago
"[...] many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected." And also, toilet paper is used to wipe asses. Many geeks indeed do even believe that intellectual "property" is a propaganda term which was coined to make the false impression that a temporary monopoly on information is somehow similar to physical property.

cookiecaper 16y ago

It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires. Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. Why should there be laws that allow hardware makers to say "THIS COMPUTER CAN ONLY RUN MOBILE OS 5.5; ALL USERS OF NON-MOBILE OS 5.5 WILL BE PROSECUTED"? What about (cooling it on the caps) "it is illegal to publish the words etched into the bottom of this oven. Do not read the words on the bottom of this oven"? Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. I think we crossed that threshold a long time ago and now we've gone way overboard into the other extreme; our current laws actively discourage creativity, which is the exact opposite of their purpose. Why doesn't your post say, "It seems many companies don't believe that those that purchase their hardware have a right to use it according to their own dictates. If these companies don't believe in that, don't mass produce and sell your product to everyone!"? Surely massive distribution with no restriction on buyers is a horrible way to keep a secret.

roel_v 16y ago
EULA's have nothing to do with copyright, it's plain contract law. If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed? If I am a shoe manufacturer with local retail outlets you and I agree that I will sell you my shoes for reselling overseas, but part of the agreement is that you won't sell them locally; should that be allowed? If you and I agree that I will sell you a device but you will only use it under certain circumstances, should that be allowed? I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations. Let people make their own agreements and then let the market decide. The only role the government has herein is to enforce contracts - what good are contracts when one party can decide retroactively that they don't like the terms anymore, and oh I don't want to cancel the contract, no I want to have my pie and eat it, too?
- Osmose 16y ago
  Technically yes, except with a PS3 your purchase amounts to agreement with the EULA; it's tucked away in a manual that no one reads, or at best is shown to the user on a screen during setup which is simply clicked through. Most people don't realize that they aren't buying the physical machine, they're buying the right to use the physical machine in approved ways only (this may be technically untrue, but it's certainly what it amounts to). I find the fact that a contract can be agreed to in these ways unethical, especially when they are hidden under the guise of buying a physical product.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? Some software makes you scroll down before you can click 'agree'; is this not enough? Should it show you the dialog for a certain amount of time? Or maybe software shouldn't be sold online, you'd always have to go to a store, where a clerk forces you to read and then quizzes you on the content before selling you the software? You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
    - narag 16y ago
      But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced? That's total nonsense, at least in my country. Any abusive clause would be nulified, even if the rest of the contract is valid. You can't put in a contract anything. You can't give up rights that the law gives you no matter what. I.e. you can't sign to be a slave.
      - 16y ago
eru 16y ago
> Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. This is often cited as the reason for copyright. Was this the actual historical reason, or just some windowdressing after the fact? (And the wording of the law in America doesn't count. It that argument hold any water, the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't be so funny.) Wikipedia has something like "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers." and similar lines.
- Natsu 16y ago
  If you want more on the history of copyright in general, I suggest looking up the works of one William Patry. He's written extensively on the subject, was the former general counsel for Google, and now writes on the subject at his blog: http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/ http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/ And I know it's not the first copyright law (we flaunted it for years before developing our own), but the reason copyright is allowed in the USA is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
  - eru 16y ago
    I know that line from the preamble of the Copyright Clause, is cited in every discussion about copyright that involves at least one American. But I doubt it's the actual reason. To come back to my example, the USA PATRIOT act starts with "[An act] to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [...]" but do you think that's the only reason they passed it? (I don't believe the USA PATRIOT act is a good example, it's just the first I could think of at the top of my head. If you look at some acts that introduce tariffs, you'll probably see more obvious hypocrisy, where it's clear that the act was introduced because some lobbyist got their say.
tzs 16y ago
> Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. It depends. Did they sell me the oven at below cost, and their plan for not losing money overall depends on people not using the ovens for brownies? If that were the case, I'd consider buying the oven and satisfying my brownie desires some other way.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  The argument of below-cost hardware sales comes up frequently, yet I'm not at all sure it's true. Nintendo have certainly gone on record as saying the Wii was _never_ sold for below hardware cost (don't have a reference to hand, sorry); I don't follow the scene enough any more to know the general current position but it's far from a given that hardware sales are subsidised by software. Frankly I'd much rather see the whole thing opened up and made more reasonable and competitive, into a proper market. Microsoft don't have any say over who releases what for Windows, Apple don't have a say over who releases what for OS X (though are heading down a slippery slope with the App Store following iOS...) - I see no legitimate reason for the games market to be different. If the hardware cost goes up, fine - we're still below the real-terms cost of the earlyish 16 bit era.
  - tzs 16y ago
    Yes, the Wii hardware was sold at a profit. The PS3, though, was definitely at a loss. People took it apart, and the total cost of parts at the best prices available in available in large volume was well over the retail price (not all of which goes to Sony). edit: details: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      Interesting, particularly as it suggests the XBox 360 has been sold at a profit for at least four years now. So, of the three major home systems (as distinct from portables), at least two are being sold at a profit, further reducing the argument in favour of restricting their use due to recovering initial costs.

maeon3 16y ago

It's about freedom to tinker, It is wrong to seize some hackers computers and sue him because he was able to figure out how a device he owned worked. I don't want to live in a world where I become a criminal for even attempting to figure out how MY stuff works.

dools 16y ago
Well, in practice you only get prosecuted if you publish your results on the internet. This guy could have figured out how his stuff works all he wants, and even shown his friends, with impugnity.
- pyre 16y ago
  That may be, but selectively enforced laws are evil by their very nature.
  - atomical 16y ago
    You conceded your argument but received more upvotes than the other person. Uh?
    - pyre 16y ago
      I didn't concede my point. Selectively enforced laws are intrinsically evil. Just because they aren't being applied to evil purposes right now is irrelevant. A gun is designed to kill people, and I can't argue against that fact by claiming that at present guns are only used to crack nuts open with their handles. Just because a gun isn't being used to kill people right now does nothing to make it any less deadly.
- mmt 16y ago
  if you publish your results on the internet. This is also evil in and of itself, running afoul of free speech rights.

tomjen3 16y ago

If you can't see the difference between the examples you posted and the ps3, you shouldn't be posting on hn.

amock 16y ago

I think people believe that once you buy hardware you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

baddox 16y ago

It's not just "many geeks" that don't believe intellectual property should be protected. The software engineering community in general concludes that treating software like property is illogical and perhaps harmful. At least around where I'm from, software engineers and computer scientists are explicitly taught in their ethics seminars that the entire analogy of "intellectual property" has serious logical and ethical problems inherent in it.

parasubvert 16y ago
Uh, no. There's no consensus on the ethical or illogical nature of IP. It would be extremely biased and wrong for CS majors or engineers to be "taught" that IP is illogical. There's a big difference between being supportive of FOSS and believing that intellectual property should not be protected. As far as I can tell the majority of computer scientists and software engineers (even here on HN or on Slashdot) believe that some form of copyright should exist. The problem in the US and the DMCA is with the perpetual extension of term lengths, and the prohibition of tinkering. Software patents, on the other hand, are increasingly opposed in the mainstream. Let's also not forget that there are generations of geeks that don't care for open source, and don't contribute to it. It is going to be decades before they retire.
- baddox 16y ago
  Firstly, what I'm saying doesn't necessarily have anything to do FOSS. In a world without IP protection, you could still release/sell software without disclosing the source code. In fact, the GPL for example relies on IP protection laws to even function.

trotsky 16y ago

With opinions like yours it's a miracle we have libraries.

atomical 16y ago
Not a very clever one liner but I'll bite. My opinion appears to be in the minority on here and possibly elsewhere as well. What gave you the impression that my opinion is so important to the debate as to make it a miracle. I could see if I was a congressman or in government you might think that, but I am not.
- chc 16y ago
  Your argument here — against the parent's position that the ideas you're advocating are poorly thought out and impractical — appears to be "I am allowed to have poorly thought-out and impractical opinions because I'm not in the government." That's not really much of a defense of your position.
  - atomical 16y ago
    It appears to be no such thing. Nowhere did I suggest my opinion was poorly thought out or impractical. I suggested that the parent's position was overstated and that people such as myself have very little to do with public policy.
    - chc 16y ago
      He suggested that, by pointing out that if the country followed your ideas consistently, libraries would be outlawed even though they're generally regarded as a very good thing. Your rebuttal was that you aren't in the government.

Andys 16y ago

If I buy physical goods, I have an expectation that I completely own it and can do with it whatever I want, and can share my experience completely with others. What Sony is trying to say is that when you buy a PS3 you are sort of renting it, and they still own what you can and can't do with it. Perhaps because they are selling it at a loss so they can make money when you buy games. I think that in this case they should NOT sell the device to consumers but lease/rent it, because that is the agreement they are really looking for.

temugen 16y ago
It may seem like renting to you, but unfortunately those licensing terms you agree to when you open a package of new hardware or install a piece of software, are legal. It is a shame, but if you don't agree to it, don't buy and use the product. Sony, in this case, has strong reasons for wanting to protect their console. Namely because of the contracts they hold with certain chip makers, and because they are expecting profits from playstation games to offset production costs of the console, of which there are none if people are buying loads of them to run their clusters.
- christoph 16y ago
  I didn't see any contract when I opened my PS3?
- Prisen 16y ago
  If we're only concerned about strict legality, EULAs are on very shaky legal ground. For example, EULAs that you don't sign _before_ buying the product have no legal standing at all in the EU. Sony has already tried suing PSJailbreak in Spain, they lost and had to pay damages.

alexqgb 16y ago

This is a joke, right? I can't believe you're seriously comparing online platforms owned and operated by their creators to a hardware platform that's neither.

atomical 16y ago
Just because it is a physical product doesn't make it any less protected. So, yes, I am seriously comparing them. If that's all you have to add I can't believe you wasted your time writing that.
- chc 16y ago
  It doesn't make it any less protected, but it does change whose rights come into play here. Apple owns the App Store servers, and thus you're violating its property rights if you hack them. I own my computer, so the one with property rights to protect is me.
  - atomical 16y ago
    You do not own the software, thus you violate their property right if you "hack" it.

praptak 16y ago

"[...] many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected." And also, toilet paper is used to wipe asses. Many geeks indeed do even believe that intellectual "property" is a propaganda term which was coined to make the false impression that a temporary monopoly on information is somehow similar to physical property.