4 ms·

This just feels like it's a very debatable relative perspective. Even as a professional software engineer, the value of being able to obtain and hack on "the r

by hakfoo 4y ago

This just feels like it's a very debatable relative perspective. Even as a professional software engineer, the value of being able to obtain and hack on "the rest of the software universe" would be far greater than the value I can obtain by being able to deny others that right on my relatively minor scope of work. Copyright tends to enable one software business model above others: selling canned bits with no extra work. If you're not in that business, you have little to fear, and only free publicity to gain. If we eliminated copyright tomorrow, you could torrent a copy of $work_monolith with no repercussions. There would probably be little demand, as it's in-house tooling for a niche industry that requires non-trivial infrastructure to use. I would still have a job, because I'm still among the best-qualified people to manage updates, bugfixes, and compliance needs. Hell, now I have multiple potential buyers for consultancy and development services! I think you can also say that there is something inherently sad about squandered value. Nobody ends up better off in the current scenario. Microsoft has little to no interest in selling Windows XP, but there is a cadre of users who are interested in it. I've seen a fair number of people who want to build "the dream gaming PC of their childhood" now that they have the disposable income to do so, or people with technical "we can't replace the extremely specific software/hardware that controls the $5 million industrial machine with anything newer" lock-in. They lose out on being able to legitimately build something they want, and it's not like Microsoft was going to convince these people to buy Windows 11 for that use case instead. There may be some Rube Goldberg chain of downgrade rights you can invoke, but I doubt it's as simple as "buy a Win11 key and enter it in the XP installer's prompt", nor is it the sort of thing that's widely communicated. I always figured the compromise solution was a (likely state-mediated) mandatory licensing board. You want Windows XP and the vendor won't sell it? Buy a concession license at a negotiated price from the licensing authority instead, and your "acquired somehow" copy is now legally sanctioned. That would ensure permanent availability of "back-stock" content, and the concession funds could be funneled back to the original authors, providing an effortless trickle-source of revenue on otherwise unsaleable products.

CyberRabbi 4y ago
> I always figured the compromise solution was a (likely state-mediated) mandatory licensing board. The majority of your argument seems to be based on the premise that you do not have rights over your own work. That the perceived public benefit has priority over your will over your own work. The day that the state ceases to enforce copyright based on that premise is the day that many types of software businesses will cease to exist. The incentives just won’t be there to create software that thrives under business models that require enforcement of copyright. Microsoft, as the owner of Windows XP has the right to do with it as they see fit. It’s not anyone else’s concern whether they are not making the best use of Windows XP. Especially not a mandatory governmental board. It’s their property, it’s their choice.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  IMO, the rights from copyright are not "natural" rights so much as a negotiated deal with the rest of society. Ownership of physical assets derives from concepts like "scarcity" and "exclusivity". You can't have my widget because then I can't use it, and maybe, worst case, you damage it. This is more or less a universally understood risk and we have agreed as a society to build a legal system around it. Intellectual property has no such underpinning. Once the software exists, you can't unring that bell. There's no technical reason that anyone who wants Windows XP can't have a copy; it won't wear out. Instead of coping with a universal physical inevitability, we built copyright around a social tradeoff instead-- hacking around the natural economics of a finished product that has zero marginal cost or supply constraint. This lets rights-owners simulate scarcity and exclusivity and enables some business models-- usually the "front-loaded" model of "build the product first, the sell it later in an bulk undifferented manner". Society has accepted this tradeoff because it was considered a net positive. Hence language like the original Copyright Clause of the US Constitution-- "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". It's not a natural right, it's a tradeoff where the rest of us expect to get something in return. I believe this means this deal is always subject to review, alteration, or cancellation if it no longer justifies its costs. Creativity will find a way. Music will be written for as long as "I'm in the band" is a viable pick-up line, commissioned art will exist as long as someone has more fursonae than artistic talent to draw them, and software will emerge from the millions of businesses who need it to function. Nobody's business model is sacred and guaranteed, and nobody is entitled to hold the rest of the world hostage to maintain it. Did we hold back the modern world because the steam locomotive and horse-whip manufacturers would go out of business? Why should the commercial-software industry have any more clout?
  - CyberRabbi 4y ago
    In the grand scheme of things if you set a precedent that copyright ownership is highly conditional and subject to the will of people who seek to dismiss your ownership for their own purposes, that will disincentivize investment in producing software works. Perhaps people such as yourself who wish to see modders able to do what they wish with Windows XP think there is no commercial gain in Windows XP for Microsoft. In a different world there could have been. No one can predict the life expectancy of a copy protected work. This unpredictability and mere potential for long term value is part of what incentivizes corporations to innovate and produce. Remove their unconditional long-term right over their work and you will disincentivize the advancement of the arts and sciences. You may disagree but it’s simply true given that copyright protection has only increased over the history of the US, not decreased. > the rights from copyright are not "natural" rights so much as a negotiated deal with the rest of society. All “rights” are negotiated deals with the rest of society. Rights aren’t set in stone, they are essentially abstract constructs. They must be collectively believed in.

by hakfoo 4y ago

CyberRabbi 4y ago

> I always figured the compromise solution was a (likely state-mediated) mandatory licensing board. The majority of your argument seems to be based on the premise that you do not have rights over your own work. That the perceived public benefit has priority over your will over your own work. The day that the state ceases to enforce copyright based on that premise is the day that many types of software businesses will cease to exist. The incentives just won’t be there to create software that thrives under business models that require enforcement of copyright. Microsoft, as the owner of Windows XP has the right to do with it as they see fit. It’s not anyone else’s concern whether they are not making the best use of Windows XP. Especially not a mandatory governmental board. It’s their property, it’s their choice.

hakfoo 4y ago
IMO, the rights from copyright are not "natural" rights so much as a negotiated deal with the rest of society. Ownership of physical assets derives from concepts like "scarcity" and "exclusivity". You can't have my widget because then I can't use it, and maybe, worst case, you damage it. This is more or less a universally understood risk and we have agreed as a society to build a legal system around it. Intellectual property has no such underpinning. Once the software exists, you can't unring that bell. There's no technical reason that anyone who wants Windows XP can't have a copy; it won't wear out. Instead of coping with a universal physical inevitability, we built copyright around a social tradeoff instead-- hacking around the natural economics of a finished product that has zero marginal cost or supply constraint. This lets rights-owners simulate scarcity and exclusivity and enables some business models-- usually the "front-loaded" model of "build the product first, the sell it later in an bulk undifferented manner". Society has accepted this tradeoff because it was considered a net positive. Hence language like the original Copyright Clause of the US Constitution-- "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". It's not a natural right, it's a tradeoff where the rest of us expect to get something in return. I believe this means this deal is always subject to review, alteration, or cancellation if it no longer justifies its costs. Creativity will find a way. Music will be written for as long as "I'm in the band" is a viable pick-up line, commissioned art will exist as long as someone has more fursonae than artistic talent to draw them, and software will emerge from the millions of businesses who need it to function. Nobody's business model is sacred and guaranteed, and nobody is entitled to hold the rest of the world hostage to maintain it. Did we hold back the modern world because the steam locomotive and horse-whip manufacturers would go out of business? Why should the commercial-software industry have any more clout?
- CyberRabbi 4y ago
  In the grand scheme of things if you set a precedent that copyright ownership is highly conditional and subject to the will of people who seek to dismiss your ownership for their own purposes, that will disincentivize investment in producing software works. Perhaps people such as yourself who wish to see modders able to do what they wish with Windows XP think there is no commercial gain in Windows XP for Microsoft. In a different world there could have been. No one can predict the life expectancy of a copy protected work. This unpredictability and mere potential for long term value is part of what incentivizes corporations to innovate and produce. Remove their unconditional long-term right over their work and you will disincentivize the advancement of the arts and sciences. You may disagree but it’s simply true given that copyright protection has only increased over the history of the US, not decreased. > the rights from copyright are not "natural" rights so much as a negotiated deal with the rest of society. All “rights” are negotiated deals with the rest of society. Rights aren’t set in stone, they are essentially abstract constructs. They must be collectively believed in.