> 1. That isn't a thing > 2. If your company doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter if you comply with the law anymore. > 3. Insurance writes checks, it does

> 1. That isn't a thing > 2. If your company doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter if you comply with the law anymore. > 3. Insurance writes checks, it doesn't conduct business operations Insurance writes checks that you can contract to have fund whatever you want. You can make someone agree to carry insurance against bankruptcy so that if it happens the insurance pays out, and then require the payout to go into a trust whose purpose is to continue to support the hardware for the specified period of time, if that's what you want to do. > It's not legal to open source a baseband radio in many countries because of the licensing requirements to use the spectrum. If you make this a requirement, and companies want to sell cellphones in other countries (they do) you have banned the manufacture of these devices in your country. This can't realistically be the actual requirement. So if the source code to your phone firmware leaks on the internet it becomes illegal to sell the phone in these jurisdictions? What does it mean to be released? If you change two lines of code for the phones sold into that market, is that fine because the now-distinct code is unpublished, or is any phone with a Linux kernel on it illegal there -- or the Windows kernel which has BSD-licensed code in it -- because at least part of the code is public? Any laws even resembling that should be repealed anyway. > It's more likely they will conduct operations outside of your jurisdiction, and continue their business as they currently do. The relevant jurisdiction is the one where the products are sold. If this is a large jurisdiction like the US or the EU, the premise that nobody is going to sell computers or phones there anymore seems highly implausible. > You don't "read" a piece of software the same way you don't "read" a song on the radio. Software runs on a computer, and songs play on a radio. If you want to create a derivative work of a piece of music, having the recording will be all a musician needs, whereas having only object code is going to frustrate a programmer. > You can't create a derivative work of my nudes on my phone, because I won't give them to you. But then you also can't (or have no opportunity to) exercise any of the rights copyright imparts. If your stuff never leaves your phone then you can't sue someone for infringing your copyright because they have nothing from which to make an illicit copy or derivative work before the copyright expires. That doesn't mean you have to be the one to publish it, but without it somehow getting out, there is nothing to enforce. And obviously in the common case copyright is being used for published works -- the date of first publication is even used to determine the copyright term in the common case. For corporations it's 95 years from first publication. > Copyright is and has only ever been about protecting creators rights. Only patent law is predicated on sharing. In the US they both come from the same clause in the constitution: > [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. The goal in both cases is the same (promote the Progress), only the thing protected differs (writings vs. discoveries), and in both cases it's for limited times, implying that enriching the public domain is the mandated result.