zdnet.com/article/russian-poli

Russian police raid office, arrest two people central to development.

And of course the excuse is fucking copyright law. Death to intellectual property. -_-

@phryk if they were accused of tax evasion, would you be saying "death to wealth redistribution" ?

@Wolf480pl This is either stupid or just bad faith bullshit.

I mean implying that taxes and intellectual property are somehow equivalent – you have no excuse to even pretend that makes sense…

@phryk IMO, copyright has legit usecase. As it is legislated right now, it is being abused. And people who abuse it often imply that it arises from some kind of "intellectual property" which they think is a natural law or sth. This is bogus.

But that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist at all. IMO it should be fixed, not destroyed.

And the case of nginx proves nothing about copyright law.
If you're an oppressive regime, or are friends with some corrupted officials, you can use ANY LAW to destroy your enemies, no matter what the law says or for what purpose it was written.

Follow

@Wolf480pl Intellectual Property is the enemy of a free society.

The nginx case is just one in a global pattern that has been going on for decades now. Another would be FrageDenStaat being sued for breach of copyright when publishing answers to the local equivalent of FOIA requests.

Art and education must be free, otherwise you're enforcing social hierarchies I consider myself to be an enemy of.

@Wolf480pl As a hacker, you should have an intuitive understanding of this. Access to information should be free, this tenet has been with us basically from the start.

@phryk I'm well aware of this.
But I'm also aware that without copyright there wouldn't be copyleft, and copyleft lets us obtain and make public various pieces of information which would otherwise stay secret.
One huge example is Linux kernel. If there was no copyright, we would never get the source code of kernels running on all kinds of embedded computers, from smartphones to routers to fridges.

@Wolf480pl That's just plain wrong. If there was nt copyright there wouldn't be copyleft because copyleft defines itself as a contrast to copyright.

And if there was no copyright, there still are a plethora of other ways to agree on a form of collaboration. Like a contract. Or a spoken agreement. Or just random happenstance because the collaborators share similar values regarding transparency and open access…

@phryk ok, but then you have non-cooperative players who will just grab your code (because your code is public), and will modify it to run it on their proprietary hardware, but they'll keep the changes and hardware specs in secret, and distribute black box devices to you.

@Wolf480pl Which we would reverse and open source within a year and there'd be fuck all they could do… 🙄

@Wolf480pl As it stands now similar scenarios are routinely taking place and enforced by intellectual property laws.

@phryk @Wolf480pl Copyleft _forces_ you to share the modified sources, lack of copyright does not.

@Wolf480pl @phryk copyleft is described as a hack by its inventor.

I'd drop it in a second to replace it with a world where intellectual property is not a thing.

@lupine @phryk
In our world, "intellectual property" is not a thing. It's a lie.
There is copyright, there are trademarks, patents, etc. but there's no "intellectual property". They want you to believe there is "intellectual property" so that you can't see through their abuse of copyright, patents, etc.

@Wolf480pl I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who's mostly talking meaningless gibberish. Sorry, if you want to have a discussion, you'll at least have to argue in good faith. @lupine

@lupine @phryk
And even if FSF and whatnot thinks copyleft is a hack, I'd still want copyleft in a world without copyright.

@Wolf480pl @phryk you might, but the FSF wouldn't - and for once, I'm with them.
@Wolf480pl @phryk sigh.

It is a thing. A constructed thing, but a thing nonetheless. Abolishing the constructed thing (or things, if you absolutely insist on being clumsy about it) would have concrete real-world effects.

@xj9 @phryk @lupine
because, eg. when you buy a yoghurt called "Jogobella", and it turns out it tastes good, wouldn't you want to be sure that next time you buy a yoghurt with the same name it'll also taste good? If you let everyone call their yoghurt that name, then there's no way to tell who made the one you're about to buy, and whether you can expect the same quality as before.

@Wolf480pl @xj9 @phryk @lupine That's what provenance is for, not trademarks. Trademarks are just a lazy way to claim provenance. Still need to provide proof that the item trademarked is also from the company owning the trademark.

@lordbowlich @xj9 @phryk @lupine
ok, what alternative way to implement provenance do you propose?

@xj9 @lordbowlich
Ok, that's a pretty good way, for cases where you can make yourself whatever you need, i.e. for cases where you don't trade with anyone.

But how do you deal with cases where you do want to trade with others? Or do you not trade with anyone at all?

@xj9 @Wolf480pl @lordbowlich @lupine @phryk There's also repeatable tests a la pill tests. Doesn't matter what symbol they press into it if you can prove it's what you're after with dirt cheap chemistry.

@Wolf480pl @xj9 @phryk @lupine We already have one. There already exists a web of trust between you the consumer back to the producer.

You trust the Grocery store to deal with a reputable wholeseller who will deal directly with the producer of your yogurt. You trust that each entity in the chain is doing their due diligence to insure that the entity before it is handling off legitimate goods.

Regardless of if there is or is not trademarks, you still need to provide provenance that the product passed from each hand goes back to the original producer and isn't counterfit.

At least in the states, you're already getting this from a government entity like the FDA.

@Wolf480pl @xj9 @phryk @lupine And if you don't have provenance or can't trust your supplier to provide you with a non-counterfit item, then you still wouldn't be able to trust them to not switch the item out for a counterfit even if there was a trademark on it.

@Wolf480pl @xj9 @phryk @lupine I want to chip in saying I do personally find trademarks very helpful, and rely on it for staying on diet.

Trademarks do seem less related to this "intellectual property" lie than copyrights & patents...

But I'm muting this conversation I don't care enough to continue arguing.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!