4 ms·

I don’t understand why software and other IP rights aren’t de facto open-source after 10 or 20 years, if nothing else for archive and legacy purpose, but also t

I don’t understand why software and other IP rights aren’t de facto open-source after 10 or 20 years, if nothing else for archive and legacy purpose, but also to encourage sustained innovation. I’m not even leftist; but even in the capitalist/libertarian theory, the state shouldn’t help guard private companies’ rights in software. If you publish it, the recipient has it, period. The state lending its judges to enforce exclusive rights for a few years is already a big extraction of collective resources for private interests. Found the source of Windows XP? It’s alright, you shouldn’t be condemned for publishing it, it will only help with bugfixes and security, and as long as the owner refuses to sell it...

rayiner 6y ago
> I’m not even leftist; but even in the capitalist/libertarian theory, the state shouldn’t help guard private companies’ rights in software. If you publish it, the recipient has it, period. The state lending its judges to enforce exclusive rights for a few years is already a big extraction of collective resources for private interests. How is software, something of which there is an infinite supply that doesn’t exist until someone creates it, more of a “collective resource” than my back yard, which was here before I was born and will remain here after I die?
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  Millions of people can use VI at once without any direct impact on Bill Joy or his even even noticing it. Millions of people using his back yard at once would be an entirely different matter!
  - rayiner 6y ago
    That means a good is non-rival. Why does that make it more or less “communal?” VI wouldn’t exist without Bill Joy, but his backyard would. Doesn’t that make VI more personal and less communal?
    - laurent92 6y ago
      What is communal is the protection provided by the state. When the state has to protect houses, it’s an easy job, very deterministic, and costs are known. But states routinely refuse to protect large sums of money and require that you acquire your own protection. Something which is too costly for the commons or to vague to determine will be excluded from public protection. Protecting ideas is excluded for example, because they spread so fast that it is practically impossible to protect. I’m of the opinion that bytes are too costly/too vague to be protected by the state, and today is a good example since we had to use all courts up to the Supreme Court to rule on what sounds like a frivolous detail to most of the people. Ruling on whether an API is copyrightable is maybe a sign that the state attempts to protect too much and therefore can’t even distinguish between “too much” and “beyond” its scope.
      - cturner 6y ago
        Here, you make an argument is about enforceability that undermines your earlier note about "10 or 20 years". The obvious conclusion of your enforceability argument is that we should not have any form of copyright. That's fine, but it would be a tighter thread if you'd spent a few more minutes to form that argument originally. The "collective resource" and "communal" concepts above seem to be improvised. If you want to succeed at introducing new concepts, they will need to be well-grounded.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

rayiner 6y ago

> I’m not even leftist; but even in the capitalist/libertarian theory, the state shouldn’t help guard private companies’ rights in software. If you publish it, the recipient has it, period. The state lending its judges to enforce exclusive rights for a few years is already a big extraction of collective resources for private interests. How is software, something of which there is an infinite supply that doesn’t exist until someone creates it, more of a “collective resource” than my back yard, which was here before I was born and will remain here after I die?

AlchemistCamp 6y ago
Millions of people can use VI at once without any direct impact on Bill Joy or his even even noticing it. Millions of people using his back yard at once would be an entirely different matter!
- rayiner 6y ago
  That means a good is non-rival. Why does that make it more or less “communal?” VI wouldn’t exist without Bill Joy, but his backyard would. Doesn’t that make VI more personal and less communal?
  - laurent92 6y ago
    What is communal is the protection provided by the state. When the state has to protect houses, it’s an easy job, very deterministic, and costs are known. But states routinely refuse to protect large sums of money and require that you acquire your own protection. Something which is too costly for the commons or to vague to determine will be excluded from public protection. Protecting ideas is excluded for example, because they spread so fast that it is practically impossible to protect. I’m of the opinion that bytes are too costly/too vague to be protected by the state, and today is a good example since we had to use all courts up to the Supreme Court to rule on what sounds like a frivolous detail to most of the people. Ruling on whether an API is copyrightable is maybe a sign that the state attempts to protect too much and therefore can’t even distinguish between “too much” and “beyond” its scope.
    - cturner 6y ago
      Here, you make an argument is about enforceability that undermines your earlier note about "10 or 20 years". The obvious conclusion of your enforceability argument is that we should not have any form of copyright. That's fine, but it would be a tighter thread if you'd spent a few more minutes to form that argument originally. The "collective resource" and "communal" concepts above seem to be improvised. If you want to succeed at introducing new concepts, they will need to be well-grounded.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]