4 ms·

> Again, software licensing is the same. Yes, which is why I'm a free software supporter. > Renting a home, or a car, is the same. No, because that is scarce

> Again, software licensing is the same. Yes, which is why I'm a free software supporter. > Renting a home, or a car, is the same. No, because that is scarce. > If I buy a book, I can resell that book freely. Not if it's an e-book. > It's just that I can't write my own sequel to it, or turn it into a film without the author's permission. This strikes me as a very good thing. I disagree. Why shouldn't people be able to adapt and reuse previous works, if the author has already been compensated for their time for the original book? Of course, the author still has the ability to write an "official sequel" or make an "official adaption". This ignores fan-art and fan-fics as well (which is not always non-commercial, by the way). We shouldn't need the permission [1] of previous creators to build on top of their works, because culture does not end with them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture

rich_sasha 3y ago
Right. So you have the option to go for free software. And that's great, I'm all up for it. But it's actually the same thing. The software creator gets to choose how you use the software. It's their right. I think if you take away strong copyright, it will be replaced by DRM and legally binding license fees for even trivial things like books. And I think, to some extent, fair enough. I think if you make something, you can freely choose what terms people get it on - and they can always refuse. If anything, copyright is more permissive than the alternative.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  No, the whole point of TFA is that it is not their right to choose to restrict how others want to use their work. In fact, it is unethical, and so simply having the option to use FOSS is not enough. It is, at most, an economic incentive. In a post-copyright world, DRM will be legal to break, and such licenses will be unenforceable. If producers try to restrict us, we can and will simply ignore them. Because it is not their right.

rich_sasha 3y ago

Right. So you have the option to go for free software. And that's great, I'm all up for it. But it's actually the same thing. The software creator gets to choose how you use the software. It's their right. I think if you take away strong copyright, it will be replaced by DRM and legally binding license fees for even trivial things like books. And I think, to some extent, fair enough. I think if you make something, you can freely choose what terms people get it on - and they can always refuse. If anything, copyright is more permissive than the alternative.

CaptainFever 3y ago
No, the whole point of TFA is that it is not their right to choose to restrict how others want to use their work. In fact, it is unethical, and so simply having the option to use FOSS is not enough. It is, at most, an economic incentive. In a post-copyright world, DRM will be legal to break, and such licenses will be unenforceable. If producers try to restrict us, we can and will simply ignore them. Because it is not their right.