3 ms·
With traditional property, the vendor never had this right. I could buy a hammer and use it hammer in nails or use it to break windows and the hammer manufactur
by AlexandrB 2y ago
With traditional property, the vendor never had this right. I could buy a hammer and use it hammer in nails or use it to break windows and the hammer manufacturer couldn't stop me. It was one thing when intellectual property was entertainment and media but now that it's come to encompass tools needed to interact with the world users need to have something more akin to traditional consumer rights for apps they "own".
- toasterlovin 2y agoBut intellectual property has traditionally been property for a long time. Copyright isn’t a recent invention.
- beeflet 2y agoYou're applying copyright to something functional like a computer program versus a piece of art. And what these companies are doing is making the (hardware or external) functionality dependent on that copy-written computer program. So now it's impossible to modify your device without modifying software and thus breaking copyright. Take a look at the US constitution copyright clause: [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. How does this use case of copyright promote the progress of science and useful arts? Copyright was clearly intended to make it temporarily difficult to publish information, not to make it impossible to modify machines.