6 ms·

> those who can't host their own software are being abused by those who can What is more abusive—choosing to sell your creation on your own terms, or forcing s

> those who can't host their own software are being abused by those who can What is more abusive—choosing to sell your creation on your own terms, or forcing someone else to sell their creation to you on terms of your choosing? Thankfully, if someone creates something of value, they don’t have to sell it to you if they don’t want to.

thegagne 4y ago
I think the issue is the old rug pull where the terms/price change dramatically after you are hooked, and after they have bought out or undercut the competition.
- chii 4y ago
  i think the most important change to legislate that could fix this problem is a freedom to demand api/specs from a company for the purposes of reverse engineering an competing product. This would include the data format that a customer can expect to be able to export off the product they pay for. E.g., any data, file, or model, etc, should be exportable and in a format that is specified well enough for a competing company to offer a migration path away. this right will ensure that there wouldn't be any rugpulls.
  - yourapostasy 4y ago
    That won’t be good enough. These representation models get terrifyingly complex and even genuine good faith implementations between different parties will differ, much less efforts tainted by bad actors. One only need look at web browser engines vis a vis web standards, all out in the open, and the Herculean effort required to get to the current state of differences between browser rendering, to get a sense of the challenge. Such specifications also need to maintain test suites with real data and code and reference code to even start a conversation about effective inter-product data interchange.
mr-pink 4y ago
are you kidding? what if microsoft/apple started charging you every time you save a file or add a monthly fee for undo/redo? should i pay a fee every mile i mouse my mouse? rent-seeking bs needs to stop.
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  One difference is that Apple nor Microsoft has a natural monopoly. There's a hassle of changing OS's, but ultimately it's a market in which the must compete.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  This is all just one giant opportunity for a company that actually wants to cater to what customers want.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Displacing the long-time market leader would take 5-10 years and a lot of money and defensive litigation. Autodesk was the premium CAD software when I got my first job building computers in the 1980s. I think it's a little silly to call it an opportunity unless you have $10s of millions in capital to get the ball rolling. Of course you could take an open-source approach like Blender, but that's a 20-30 year climb.
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    That is part wishful thinking and part misunderstanding the market. These are "industry standards" and you are thus completely locked in. Thus, when Adobe switched to their subscription model, what people wanted was a software that is 100% compatible and looks and functions identically, but without the bullshit. Surprise that does not exist because only Adobe can legally offer that.
    - vagrantJin 4y ago
      All Adobe did was lock out small players who have found alternatives. Blender comes to mind. Even big studios have blender somewhere in their workflow. Its a marvel.
teakettle42 4y ago
Rent-seeking is more abusive than enforcing ownership rights, by far. Copyright is an invention; if it is being used to grossly undermine ownership rights, then we should reconsider the extent to which we privilege copyright holders, including our current approach of granting state-backed legal enforcement of their DRM schemes.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Copyright was never meant to be perpetual, it nominally expires. The Walt Disney corporation has paid Congress to extend copyright essentially indefinitely to prevent works from falling into the public domain. Most importantly is "Steamboat Willie", the first work with Mickey Mouse in it. As long as Congress continues to cash the checks that Walt Disney writes, copyright is an indefinite protection.
  - supportlocal4h 4y ago
    I understood Winnie the Pooh to be the harbinger. Edit: Winnie 1926, later purchased by Disney Willie 1928
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    FWIW there's no talk of a copyright extension on the horizon and only a year and a half left to ram one through. The last major extension was lobbied for on the back of EU harmonization and free trade; that's been done and dusted. Few countries have supra-German copyright terms and none of them are dealmaker countries. Furthermore, having the mouse fall out of copyright doesn't actually impact Disney's bottom line all that much, for two reasons: 1. They aren't losing much. You still can't put him on a t-shirt or sell any merch of him; that will infringe upon trademarks that will practically never expire. You are only limited to either direct reuploads of the public-domain material (which is practically worthless save for historical value) or including him as a character in another unrelated new work; and even then you will have to be very careful to only include aspects of him that were expressed in a public domain cartoon. Anything still under copyright casts a long shadow over the public domain[0]. 2. The mouse isn't actually their flagship franchise anymore. Disney has since graduated to the FAANG strategy of "Can't innovate? Just buy your competition!". In this case that means buying up Marvel, Lucasfilm, and most of 20th Century FOX to gain access to more relevant - and, most importantly, newer works. Those works will not hit the public domain in any appreciable way for at least another half-century. [0] My favorite example of this: Public Domain Sherlock Holmes is not allowed to have emotions because that's part of Still Copyrighted Sherlock Holmes.
horsawlarway 4y ago
Look - I have zero problem with a creator selling a product under their own terms. I have a LOT of problems with having all of us enforce copyright for them (at society's expense - mind you) so that they can freaking rent you their product forever. Basically - I think capitalism is structured to be efficient when you have to produce physical goods, and every copy incurs an unavoidable expense - which can be optimized through competition. I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with digital goods. The clear goal is for companies to keep the right to make zero-cost copies, and force consumers to rent a copy for an on-going permanent cost. Where is the end game here? What is your plan when literally every item costs you a monthly charge, and you own nothing? Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery?
- xpe 4y ago
  > Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery? What? This is a non sequitur. Please explain the connection to slavery (as defined as a person is owned by another and has no or few rights).
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Because slavery is complicated, and historically comes in a huge variety of forms, often with completely different social expectations and rights, but a general theme: The theme is that your labor, and the value it produces, is not captured by you. You work, but do not capture the benefits of that work in meaningful and significant ways. This is directly related to "you do not own - you rent". Because that (quite literal) rent seeking behavior is leaching additional capital from you. If you prefer, or if "slavery" is a term you feel loaded, you can substitute "serfdom" instead. It's also not quite apt - since it implies a tie to a specific geographic location, but it's close. Alternatively, you might consider this very similar to a person in a "company town" - they work all day at the company, only to be forced to buy literally every item from the only store in town - the company's store. Which, conveniently for the company, charges them roughly their month's wage for housing/food/clothing. They are working and gaining nothing. --- So in this case, what happens when every item you need (not want) to participate in society is costing you a monthly subscription cost equivalent to your monthly wages? What happens when internet, car, home, phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items, that capture literally all of your wages? I'd actually say that for many lower class folks in the US right now this is already the case - they work 80 hours a week at two full time jobs, and literally all of it simply gets them to tomorrow. Nothing can be saved, there is no chance to "own" any of it. They certainly make plenty of value - it's just captured by someone else. It's not going to stop there, though - it's going to keep eating through the ranks of our society. You will be free! (please note that your freedom is the choice to rent an Apple or a Google phone). You have choices! (please note that your choices are limited to renting a car from BMW/Ford/Tesla/etc). You will make decisions! (please note that your decisions are limited to selecting whether to rent content from Hulu or Netflix). You can vote for any one you want! (please note that they must be either Democrat or Republican).
hilbert42 4y ago
"Thankfully, if someone creates something of value, they don’t have to sell it to you if they don’t want to." That's fine but here the conditions were changed after one's already committed money. That's a different ballgame altogether and it should be regulated by law - simply because it's intentional exploitation.
- legutierr 4y ago
  Agreed, the conditions of a sale shouldn’t be altered once money has changed hands. Such things should be regulated by law—and they are, through the enforcement of contracts and fair advertising laws.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    Absolutely. But loopholes like this need closing. Edit: it just occurred to me that this Autodesk case is big enough to become a precedent. If lawmakers and regulators want reasons for updating the law then they should look here. Moreover, the many issues raised here in comments by HN's knowledgeable readership would alone provide sufficient justification for laws to be altered. I hope those from Autodesk read these comments, it may give them room for thought.
anigbrowl 4y ago
This is disingenuous. If you introduce a new product and say 'here's my business model' then sure, people can take it or leave it. If you have a well established product that dominates its market and exploit your vendor lock-in to say 'hey in 30 days I'm just going to start charging you an additional rent in exchange for nothing, by turning off a feature you may have come to depend on' then you're basically telling your existing customers 'fuck you, that's why.' They haven't created anything of value in this case. they've destroyed value in order to extract an economic rent. It's zombie economics.

thegagne 4y ago

I think the issue is the old rug pull where the terms/price change dramatically after you are hooked, and after they have bought out or undercut the competition.

chii 4y ago
i think the most important change to legislate that could fix this problem is a freedom to demand api/specs from a company for the purposes of reverse engineering an competing product. This would include the data format that a customer can expect to be able to export off the product they pay for. E.g., any data, file, or model, etc, should be exportable and in a format that is specified well enough for a competing company to offer a migration path away. this right will ensure that there wouldn't be any rugpulls.
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  That won’t be good enough. These representation models get terrifyingly complex and even genuine good faith implementations between different parties will differ, much less efforts tainted by bad actors. One only need look at web browser engines vis a vis web standards, all out in the open, and the Herculean effort required to get to the current state of differences between browser rendering, to get a sense of the challenge. Such specifications also need to maintain test suites with real data and code and reference code to even start a conversation about effective inter-product data interchange.

mr-pink 4y ago

are you kidding? what if microsoft/apple started charging you every time you save a file or add a monthly fee for undo/redo? should i pay a fee every mile i mouse my mouse? rent-seeking bs needs to stop.

CoastalCoder 4y ago
One difference is that Apple nor Microsoft has a natural monopoly. There's a hassle of changing OS's, but ultimately it's a market in which the must compete.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
This is all just one giant opportunity for a company that actually wants to cater to what customers want.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Displacing the long-time market leader would take 5-10 years and a lot of money and defensive litigation. Autodesk was the premium CAD software when I got my first job building computers in the 1980s. I think it's a little silly to call it an opportunity unless you have $10s of millions in capital to get the ball rolling. Of course you could take an open-source approach like Blender, but that's a 20-30 year climb.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  That is part wishful thinking and part misunderstanding the market. These are "industry standards" and you are thus completely locked in. Thus, when Adobe switched to their subscription model, what people wanted was a software that is 100% compatible and looks and functions identically, but without the bullshit. Surprise that does not exist because only Adobe can legally offer that.
  - vagrantJin 4y ago
    All Adobe did was lock out small players who have found alternatives. Blender comes to mind. Even big studios have blender somewhere in their workflow. Its a marvel.

teakettle42 4y ago

Rent-seeking is more abusive than enforcing ownership rights, by far. Copyright is an invention; if it is being used to grossly undermine ownership rights, then we should reconsider the extent to which we privilege copyright holders, including our current approach of granting state-backed legal enforcement of their DRM schemes.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Copyright was never meant to be perpetual, it nominally expires. The Walt Disney corporation has paid Congress to extend copyright essentially indefinitely to prevent works from falling into the public domain. Most importantly is "Steamboat Willie", the first work with Mickey Mouse in it. As long as Congress continues to cash the checks that Walt Disney writes, copyright is an indefinite protection.
- supportlocal4h 4y ago
  I understood Winnie the Pooh to be the harbinger. Edit: Winnie 1926, later purchased by Disney Willie 1928
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  FWIW there's no talk of a copyright extension on the horizon and only a year and a half left to ram one through. The last major extension was lobbied for on the back of EU harmonization and free trade; that's been done and dusted. Few countries have supra-German copyright terms and none of them are dealmaker countries. Furthermore, having the mouse fall out of copyright doesn't actually impact Disney's bottom line all that much, for two reasons: 1. They aren't losing much. You still can't put him on a t-shirt or sell any merch of him; that will infringe upon trademarks that will practically never expire. You are only limited to either direct reuploads of the public-domain material (which is practically worthless save for historical value) or including him as a character in another unrelated new work; and even then you will have to be very careful to only include aspects of him that were expressed in a public domain cartoon. Anything still under copyright casts a long shadow over the public domain[0]. 2. The mouse isn't actually their flagship franchise anymore. Disney has since graduated to the FAANG strategy of "Can't innovate? Just buy your competition!". In this case that means buying up Marvel, Lucasfilm, and most of 20th Century FOX to gain access to more relevant - and, most importantly, newer works. Those works will not hit the public domain in any appreciable way for at least another half-century. [0] My favorite example of this: Public Domain Sherlock Holmes is not allowed to have emotions because that's part of Still Copyrighted Sherlock Holmes.

horsawlarway 4y ago

Look - I have zero problem with a creator selling a product under their own terms. I have a LOT of problems with having all of us enforce copyright for them (at society's expense - mind you) so that they can freaking rent you their product forever. Basically - I think capitalism is structured to be efficient when you have to produce physical goods, and every copy incurs an unavoidable expense - which can be optimized through competition. I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with digital goods. The clear goal is for companies to keep the right to make zero-cost copies, and force consumers to rent a copy for an on-going permanent cost. Where is the end game here? What is your plan when literally every item costs you a monthly charge, and you own nothing? Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery?

xpe 4y ago
> Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery? What? This is a non sequitur. Please explain the connection to slavery (as defined as a person is owned by another and has no or few rights).
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Because slavery is complicated, and historically comes in a huge variety of forms, often with completely different social expectations and rights, but a general theme: The theme is that your labor, and the value it produces, is not captured by you. You work, but do not capture the benefits of that work in meaningful and significant ways. This is directly related to "you do not own - you rent". Because that (quite literal) rent seeking behavior is leaching additional capital from you. If you prefer, or if "slavery" is a term you feel loaded, you can substitute "serfdom" instead. It's also not quite apt - since it implies a tie to a specific geographic location, but it's close. Alternatively, you might consider this very similar to a person in a "company town" - they work all day at the company, only to be forced to buy literally every item from the only store in town - the company's store. Which, conveniently for the company, charges them roughly their month's wage for housing/food/clothing. They are working and gaining nothing. --- So in this case, what happens when every item you need (not want) to participate in society is costing you a monthly subscription cost equivalent to your monthly wages? What happens when internet, car, home, phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items, that capture literally all of your wages? I'd actually say that for many lower class folks in the US right now this is already the case - they work 80 hours a week at two full time jobs, and literally all of it simply gets them to tomorrow. Nothing can be saved, there is no chance to "own" any of it. They certainly make plenty of value - it's just captured by someone else. It's not going to stop there, though - it's going to keep eating through the ranks of our society. You will be free! (please note that your freedom is the choice to rent an Apple or a Google phone). You have choices! (please note that your choices are limited to renting a car from BMW/Ford/Tesla/etc). You will make decisions! (please note that your decisions are limited to selecting whether to rent content from Hulu or Netflix). You can vote for any one you want! (please note that they must be either Democrat or Republican).

hilbert42 4y ago

"Thankfully, if someone creates something of value, they don’t have to sell it to you if they don’t want to." That's fine but here the conditions were changed after one's already committed money. That's a different ballgame altogether and it should be regulated by law - simply because it's intentional exploitation.

legutierr 4y ago
Agreed, the conditions of a sale shouldn’t be altered once money has changed hands. Such things should be regulated by law—and they are, through the enforcement of contracts and fair advertising laws.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  Absolutely. But loopholes like this need closing. Edit: it just occurred to me that this Autodesk case is big enough to become a precedent. If lawmakers and regulators want reasons for updating the law then they should look here. Moreover, the many issues raised here in comments by HN's knowledgeable readership would alone provide sufficient justification for laws to be altered. I hope those from Autodesk read these comments, it may give them room for thought.

anigbrowl 4y ago

This is disingenuous. If you introduce a new product and say 'here's my business model' then sure, people can take it or leave it. If you have a well established product that dominates its market and exploit your vendor lock-in to say 'hey in 30 days I'm just going to start charging you an additional rent in exchange for nothing, by turning off a feature you may have come to depend on' then you're basically telling your existing customers 'fuck you, that's why.' They haven't created anything of value in this case. they've destroyed value in order to extract an economic rent. It's zombie economics.