5 ms·

Absolutely agreed. I'm of the opinion that anything under DRM, and any closed-source software, should not be eligible for copyright. When a work enters the pu

Absolutely agreed. I'm of the opinion that anything under DRM, and any closed-source software, should not be eligible for copyright. When a work enters the public domain, society is allowed to build upon that work. If extant copies of the work are not in a form that allows others to build upon, then that right is infringed.

Silhouette 6y ago
any closed-source software, should not be eligible for copyright This is how you get software companies running almost everything on their own servers, subscription-only, updates-mandatory, so no-one ever gets a copy of the work themselves and copyright is irrelevant. I think it is abundantly clear by now that this is not necessarily a beneficial direction for the industry to be moving, at least not from the point of view of purchaser/user rights and future-proofing.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  So make that illegal too. Basically write the AGPL into the law.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    OK, so now only foreign software companies are providing these services and you aren't even getting the tax revenues or employment. That doesn't seem like an improvement.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      As long as we're pretending things that will never happen anyway, let's also pretend there's a Berne Convention 2.0 to cut out basically every suitable host country. Alternatively, how about a law that no government-owned systems may directly or indirectly use any services where the source isn't available? That would be a big enough seed that the viral/transitive nature of the first law would probably spread to everything.
      - Silhouette 6y ago
        The thing is, everything I first described already happens. Software companies have been moving towards SAAS and online game servers and other ways of running key parts of the code only on their own systems for some time, and the initial motivation for that was often copy protection even if today there are other advantages from the developer's perspective.

Silhouette 6y ago

any closed-source software, should not be eligible for copyright This is how you get software companies running almost everything on their own servers, subscription-only, updates-mandatory, so no-one ever gets a copy of the work themselves and copyright is irrelevant. I think it is abundantly clear by now that this is not necessarily a beneficial direction for the industry to be moving, at least not from the point of view of purchaser/user rights and future-proofing.

josephcsible 6y ago
So make that illegal too. Basically write the AGPL into the law.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  OK, so now only foreign software companies are providing these services and you aren't even getting the tax revenues or employment. That doesn't seem like an improvement.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    As long as we're pretending things that will never happen anyway, let's also pretend there's a Berne Convention 2.0 to cut out basically every suitable host country. Alternatively, how about a law that no government-owned systems may directly or indirectly use any services where the source isn't available? That would be a big enough seed that the viral/transitive nature of the first law would probably spread to everything.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      The thing is, everything I first described already happens. Software companies have been moving towards SAAS and online game servers and other ways of running key parts of the code only on their own systems for some time, and the initial motivation for that was often copy protection even if today there are other advantages from the developer's perspective.