3 ms·

I don't know where in the grand scheme of things we decided that knowledge was a form of might, and that its application was inherently wrong. It's furthermore

by kbolino 14y ago

I don't know where in the grand scheme of things we decided that knowledge was a form of might, and that its application was inherently wrong. It's furthermore a bit rich to decry the "might" of an individual versus comparatively vast and powerful legal entities like governments and corporations. I really ought to be able to consume content that I have purchased in a manner of my choosing. It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the game company's servers are down, or that I can't keep a backup copy of a movie that's stored on a fragile medium, or that the maker of my electronic device can rescind access to books that I've purchased. I don't take issue with business models based upon copyright because they're "outmoded"; I take issue with the provision of a privilege that exceeds its mandate. Also, I take issue with the idea of calling something "property" without attaching to it any of the trappings of property. Disney pays no tax for "owning" Mickey Mouse. They are not required to estimate in a consistent or coherent manner the value of their "property". They can sue for damages without regard to any actual costs. They can attach limitations to physical property (storage media) that abrogate normal property rights (use and resale). Yes, there are people who want to tear down copyright simply because they want free stuff. I am not one of those people; I gladly pay for the media I consume, and I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted media. But that does not make the system we have acceptable, and it does not make any and all criticism of it illegitimate.

tptacek 14y ago
It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the game company's servers are down Then don't buy the damn game. How hard is that?
- kbolino 14y ago
  I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted media That's me, in the post to which you replied, making the same point. IF I know beforehand, I won't buy the game. But how do you find out that a single-player game doesn't work when its vendor's servers go down? By owning the game and finding out first-hand (it's not printed on the box). Have you ever tried to return a piece of opened software? If the defect isn't on the disc, exchanging it won't do any good. You cannot appeal to a free market argument like caveat emptor once you've already acceded to a decidedly non-anarchistic world where the government grants and enforces copy and license rights. Consumers have positive rights too, like the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. You can be cavalier and abrasive as long as you're right; when you're not right, then you're just being an ass.

by kbolino 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the game company's servers are down Then don't buy the damn game. How hard is that?

kbolino 14y ago
I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted media That's me, in the post to which you replied, making the same point. IF I know beforehand, I won't buy the game. But how do you find out that a single-player game doesn't work when its vendor's servers go down? By owning the game and finding out first-hand (it's not printed on the box). Have you ever tried to return a piece of opened software? If the defect isn't on the disc, exchanging it won't do any good. You cannot appeal to a free market argument like caveat emptor once you've already acceded to a decidedly non-anarchistic world where the government grants and enforces copy and license rights. Consumers have positive rights too, like the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. You can be cavalier and abrasive as long as you're right; when you're not right, then you're just being an ass.