Yes they haven't paid it forward, or back, but why fight on the occupier's territory. By calling for legal frameworks to enforce this we accept the language and terms of the dominant party. By using courts and the law and creating new law for copyright we actually move further from the goal of abolishing copyright and IP entirely.
Every time we use courts to enforce IP we're strengthening the Walt Disneys and Nintendos of the world.
(I accept I am in a group of like 3 people with this goal but it's my view)
Edit: to expand slightly more on this. People should be able to decompile/reverse engineer whatever the hell they want. They shouldn't have to worry about armed goons kicking down their doors. Every time cases are used to strengthen the enforcement of IP/licensing, whether for the light (FSF) or dark (Micro$oft, Google, etc) the outcome is the same, we move further from that goal.
> the goal of abolishing copyright and IP entirely
Completely agree with you. It's the 21st century, once data has been published there is no controlling it anymore and all attempts to do so lead to the destruction of computer freedom. No doubt people all over the world copy code every single day with nobody even finding out about it. I'd rather get rid of all these monopolists than limit the potential of computers to whatever reality enables them.
>I accept I am in a group of like 3 people with this goal but it's my view
> Every time we use courts to enforce IP we're strengthening the Walt Disneys and Nintendos of the world.
Can you actually point to substantial examples where Disney or Nintendo benefited significantly from a precedent set by an open source court case? Open source has been around for decades, so it should be trivial to find numerous clear-cut examples at this point... if your theory is actually correct.
No, I honestly have no idea. I know nothing about the law and understand even less. I may be wrong about all of this, but if we take the (laughable) idea of justice being blind it stands to reason any precedent that protects a single open source developer also protects Amazon's code.
Funny thing is ALL these legal frameworks are there to protect these 3 people like you.
If there would be no enforcement of IP/licensing or legal enforcement - M$, Google etc. would not be nice - they would just come over and kick your doors cut your head off because they could do so. With legal framework they at least have to ask someone else.
You just have to understand you don't stand a chance with your 3 buddies against 10 motivated attackers.
Writing about "accepting terms of dominant party" you clearly never had a robbery at your house - imagine now corporations doing the same when there would be no legal frameworks.
Read up on Dutch East India Company - or just Nestle - Microsoft or Google are still quite nice companies with Walt Disney and Nintendo.
This is a slight misreading of my general political position. I am pro-government in general. I find the term "monopoly on violence" to generally indicate someone who lives a very cosseted and easy life who can spend time getting mad about like, seatbelt laws or speed limits, so I use it somewhat tounge-in-cheek.
There's quite a lot of possibilities between DMCAs of youtube-dl repositories and Big-co death-squads decapitating people in their homes. I'd prefer where we are now to the Brazil end of that spectrum but we can imagine better models of digital and intellectual 'property'.
Every time we use courts to enforce IP we're strengthening the Walt Disneys and Nintendos of the world.
(I accept I am in a group of like 3 people with this goal but it's my view)
Edit: to expand slightly more on this. People should be able to decompile/reverse engineer whatever the hell they want. They shouldn't have to worry about armed goons kicking down their doors. Every time cases are used to strengthen the enforcement of IP/licensing, whether for the light (FSF) or dark (Micro$oft, Google, etc) the outcome is the same, we move further from that goal.