• 3 Posts
  • 265 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 14th, 2024

help-circle

  • lemmeee@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzPdf partee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what’s the problem then? It’s just a file that can be shared.

    A lot of people don’t have a problem with that. I do, which is why I don’t use proprietary software. If I took a photo of myself (or of anything else) and posted it publicly on social media, I would do it under a free license, so that people could share it. I do that with software that I make. But that doesn’t mean I want to share everything - there are many things I want to keep private, so I will not post them publicly. There is no contradiction here.

    I’m not talking only about you. I’m talking about how senseless the “I can share files with anyone” is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn’t logical, thus it is illegal.

    I’m pretty sure companies already legally sell user data, though? Laws don’t define what is logical or what is moral.

    Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on… because it’s just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn’t stealing! … Who would make a movie under those conditions?

    People already share movies online and it’s very easy. You don’t have to pay for any digital file ever, but people choose to do it anyway. Copying files is not stealing, because it’s not a physical object - you can make an infinite amount of copies at no cost.

    If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.

    Movies sold on DVD and Blu-ray contain DRM. You can’t make copies (even for personal use) without breaking the DRM, which is illegal. If there was no DRM, you could at least make copies for personal use, which would be an improvement, but you still wouldn’t own the files.

    So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.

    Copying and sharing files only keeps getting easier and those industries haven’t died. People even sell things like games and books under a free license. One such game is Mindustry - I bought a copy myself and I can legally share it with anyone. This game is even available for free on some platforms, but people buy it anyway.

    The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you’re really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.

    You can’t steal something that’s infinite. I would pay for the movies though (even if they aren’t released under a free license) if there was a way to buy them without DRM. But there isn’t and I’m not going to support unethical practices with my money.

    There could be a website where you would be able to buy DRM-free movies and you could download them. We have such stores for music, books and games. But the movie studios are greedy, so they choose to abuse people with DRM.





  • lemmeee@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzPdf partee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think it’s easier for a person to say “piracy is bad” than “sharing files is bad”. Because why would sharing be wrong? But if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It’s a simple trick, but it works. If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn’t let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them.



  • You are right about teenagers, but on the other hand not all people are the same. For some reason we’ve decided that they are competent to make those kinds of decisions and to do other things like driving a car. So even though they are not adults, we don’t think of them as children either. There is probably no simple answer to this question, though.





  • Neither is mine, the cost is extremely minor in this case, because steam is a gaming client, and the fundamental nature of a gaming client is non-essential and not integrated into the system deeply at all.

    You could use this excuse to justify almost any type of proprietary software. Most apps are not deeply integrated into the system. That doesn’t make them ethical.

    What you fail to understand is people being on windows is way worse in every single way than them having one proprietary app on their computer.

    It is more free than Windows and I never said otherwise. I just said that it was still unethical.

    There is huge benefit, more people are using much more FOSS, and the fact is, if more people were on linux, there’d be more foss software, which means better alternatives and outcompeting proprietary software.

    But those people don’t care about their freedom. That’s the problem. They will always use proprietary software, because they only care about convenience or features. We need to change that. Only then our movement will benefit from this. We can’t let them get attached to Valve as long as they make proprietary software.

    Steam ain’t that. It’s video games. And nothing else.

    Games are software. If you can’t control what they do on your device, then you don’t control the device.

    Steam isn’t going to be what “traps” them or anything, especially when it’s sandboxed, and when you sandbox it, it has literally no integration with the rest of your system at all.

    You are assuming that a company that makes proprietary software won’t try to get more power over their users. Why wouldn’t they? Their users don’t even care. Sandboxing improves your security (which is good), but not your freedom. You still can’t see what the software does or change it, so that program is still unethical.




  • The distros being removed from this list mostly by requests from maintainers means it’s not actively monitored or researched at all. So by not verifying it you put yourself on a mercy of other people. It will fail, if not already.

    What are you talking about? It’s a list made by the Free Software Foundation. What was removed? If some information is incorrect, you should be able to prove it.

    That’s because you have to use consoles to even read them. They contain hardware DRM and are far from being ethical.

    I don’t know what hardware DRM means, but they use proprietary software, so you are right that they are unethical. I never said they were.

    Am I missing something or you’re thinking that starting with least offenders is a good idea?

    I don’t know what you mean.



  • My goal isn’t to increase the number of GNU/Linux users at all cost. I see very little benefit from people using GNU/Linux if they will use proprietary software on it, unless it’s only a temporary solution for them. If people stop using one proprietary platform only to be trapped in another without realizing it, then something went wrong. Some people ditch Android only to use SailfishOS. Or they ditch Twitter only to use Threads. So I hope those new GNU/Linux users who know nothing about the Free Software movement don’t get trapped again.

    Steam is an unethical DRM platform, so I will always criticize it regardless if it makes people switch to GNU/Linux.



  • You’d need to get literally every Linux copyright holder to agree to it, including the major corpos like Intel.

    Yes, it’s hard, but it was probably way easier in 2007 when GPLv3 came out. Linus Torvalds never wanted to do it anyway, though.

    There’s always socialism, and I think there’s a better chance for that to come to be than for Intel to limit itself over some FOSS ideals.

    I don’t see how socialism would get rid of proprietary software. I don’t think it says anything about copyright unlike the Free Software movement. Does Intel make devices that come with the Linux kernel?

    No I’m asking why do you think V3 shouldn’t be a separate license, but AGPL should. GPL V3 expands what GPL affects by a lot. V2 is only relevant for derivatives and showing your code, V3 is relevant for anything that might restrict your usage of that code. Meanwhile AGPL only changes when you need to show your code, right?

    To me it makes no difference if GPL and AGPL are a separate license or not. I use both, but I could just license everything under AGPL. Here is the FSF’s explanation: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SeparateAffero . I think the FSF considers Tivoization to be a bug of GPLv2. When they wrote it in the 90s, they probably just didn’t predict that someone will find a workaround. They made AGPL, but also LGPL. I think they just want people to use the one that makes the most sense for the project that they are working on. At the same time they probably consider GPLv2 to be obsolete - I don’t think they want people to use it anymore.

    IANAL, but I’d love to know how v3 interacts with other reasons for locking down devices. They’ve limited it to exclude obvious examples like modifying medical devices and voting machines, but do parental controls cause the device to be operated in a manner that restricts the user’s GPL freedoms?

    I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure it just means that you should be able to install another operating system. Parental controls can be turned off by the user, so I see no issue there.

    Just imagine this insanity: stop your child from installing apps on their phone - get sued by someone who doesn’t understand why children can’t consent to sex with adults.

    If you are talking about Richard Stallman, then he doesn’t believe that anymore. The organization that sues people for GPL violations is probably The Software Freedom Conservancy.