And China DOES enforce IP laws in China. They just don't enforce USA copyright laws, cause it's not the USA. And The USA doesn't enforce Chinese IP laws.
Eventually, the IP laws will be mutually respected. It'll take time. But in the meantime, this is more a trade dispute. That means that larger vendors need to be legally forced to stop shipment and sale of said violating items, and CBP needs to do more in stopping shipments coming in-country.
I'm also curious, since you work in psychiatry....
Have you seen any cases of scromiting, or "Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome"?
These articles showed up in a big online hit in mid-2022, and never seemingly referenced again. My pessimism indicated that it was likely a hit piece against cannabis, but I'd rather ask for sure than just assume some conspiracy.
Until FLOSS stewards start suing for the maximum damages permitted by law ($135k/violation) and make these company-ending events, FLOSS will be seen as a grab-n-go for anyone to pilfer, abuse, and sell as their own.
I completely understand why FLOSS people wouldn't want to go after individuals misunderstanding a license. And that's also not at all what I'm talking about. LEGO et al have been around for decades, piles of lawyers, heavy handed trademark letters from their lawyers.... but end up doing fuckall with FLOSS folks.
Think if the tables were turned - and you accurately modeled every LEGO brick and allowed sending to 3d printers to make custom bricks. Just how FAST would they shut that down?
Think if the tables were turned - and you accurately modeled every LEGO brick and allowed sending to 3d printers to make custom bricks. Just how FAST would they shut that down?
LEGO brick patents have already expired years ago and there exists plenty of alternate producers of LEGO compatible bricks. but yes, LEGO is trying every trick in the book to stop alternate brands from selling their products.
i disagree however that suing for maximum damage is helpful to GPL software. it only instills fear in companies wanting to use it because it increases the risk.
i believe a good will approach to help companies with compliance is better, only suing when companies refuse to comply.
> i disagree however that suing for maximum damage is helpful to GPL software. it only instills fear in companies wanting to use it because it increases the risk.
And for some reason, a company with questionable EULAs, illegal in many jurisdiction's terms, and hundreds of pages of dense legalese doesn't seem to scare any of these companies away.
And many FLOSS licenses are written in plain language to easily understand what you can and cant do. These companies aren't doing an accident - its intentional, ongoing, and continual malfeasance BECAUSE there is no real punishment. At best, they'll have to "comply". (And you know, FLOSS is always bemoaning no money.... well, here's a way to fund it)
> i believe a good will approach to help companies with compliance is better, only suing when companies refuse to comply.
You can disagree with me all you want. All I ask is "how does it look when the tables are turned"?
The business software alliance and Software & Information Industry Association are utterly dictatorial about intentional copyright violations, and also very harsh about accidental violations.
You can do further research on case studies of places that were called out for pirated software, and how many millions of dollars they had to pay in fines and "fixing proper licenses".
Until FLOSS starts doing tit-for-tat (the best game theory decision in these kinds of things), we're going to keep seeeing companies treating FLOSS as their own personal loot-crate with little to no punishment for intentionally doing wrong.
Until FLOSS starts doing tit-for-tat (the best game theory decision in these kinds of things), we're going to keep seeeing companies treating FLOSS as their own personal loot-crate with little to no punishment for intentionally doing wrong.
for every company that is doing that there are two others the use FOSS with good intentions, and some of those will make mistakes in their compliance which they will fix when politely approached.
if we start pursuing every violation with an immediate lawsuit then those well intended companies will stop using FOSS because they don't want to risk getting sued.
i will have to stop using FOSS in my products. because my small company can't afford a lawsuit just because i accidentally forgot to give notice or include a link to the source somewhere.
so if we do that FOSS will loose market share.
we can and should pursue malicious users aggressively, but only after we have confirmed that they are not going to comply willingly.
> for every company that is doing that there are two others the use FOSS with good intentions, and some of those will make mistakes in their compliance which they will fix when politely approached.
I doubt the statistics here. I surely hope most companies are not this sloppy with their contracts, that they "forget" to follow their requirements.
> if we start pursuing every violation with an immediate lawsuit then those well intended companies will stop using FOSS because they don't want to risk getting sued.
> i will have to stop using FOSS in my products. because my small company can't afford a lawsuit just because i accidentally forgot to give notice or include a link to the source somewhere.
And what will you use instead? How will you follow the requirements of those licences? That's what I never understand in these arguments. The alternatives have typically much stricter requirements and are enforced by large corporations.
> so if we do that FOSS will loose market share.
Why should I care about the market share of FOSS if a significant portion of that share doesn't distribute their code?
> we can and should pursue malicious users aggressively, but only after we have confirmed that they are not going to comply willingly.
i said "some of those will make mistakes", which means, most won't. there is no contradiction.
And what will you use instead?
BSD stuff i suppose, or write my own, or pay for a commercial license which is usually a lot easier to follow than the GPL, because it doesn't require me to give anything to my users. i just pay and then i can use the code however i want as long as i don't resell the source.
Why should I care about the market share of FOSS
that's up to you.
i care because FOSS, and the GPL in particular give me and other FOSS users more freedom in how they use the software. in want this freedom to spread. making it risky for businesses to use FOSS is not the way to do that.
If you can turn that into a service where I can engrave things on a plaque and have someone throw it into a garden of my choosing, I'm sure you can build a successful startup out of it.
the "gain" startups were getting was a deposit account that doesn't disappear over the weekend. these were not supposed to be high risk/reward investments.
The risk was not having insured themselves beyond what FDIC was providing. I can’t wait until my insurer covers hundreds of multiples above the coverage I have!
the FDIC limit was a minimum. for decades the FDIC has covered the full amount in practice. if the current level of fees aren't enough to cover that, they will raise them. and that is exactly what is happening now.
That is not what is happening now. They are assessing additional fees under systemic risk protection rules. FDIC rates are changed on a regular, periodic basis with forewarning time for markets to adjust, not over a weekend.
When has FDIC reimbursed more than the “up to” limit? Everything I’ve read regarding this suggests that this may be moral hazard, at least in the short term. The remaining amount should come from liquidation of the failed bank’s assets or by the acquiring bank, not the FDIC.
What is "capitalist" about requiring FDIC for a retail banking charter, then the same government creating the requirement (at gunpoint of licensing scheme) takes the money for that requirement, and creates a "insurance scheme."
Only it turns out that "insurance" is a fraud, as it is misrepresented. The premiums are advertised as being for backstopping up to 250k in the account, but it turns out this was a fraud and actually it's whatever arbitrary amount they choose all the way up to the biggest holder in the bank. And when they're finished, they'll assess a "special assessment" which totally isn't a tax, nevermind the licensees have no choice but to pay it.
First, use a good adblocker, like Ublock Origin. There's no ads in the actual video the Professor posted.
Secondly, his audience is tabletop card gamers. He does set the scene as to why he's making a video. Most of his audience is not of a technical nature.
I also made a synopsis as a comment so you didn't have to watch the video, since some (including myself!) despise video-only content. But I do follow him on YT. And his problem applies to a LOT of areas on YT, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and elsewhere.
Public schools have been instituting in "gig work" before that even became a term.
I remember in my elementary years (5-11 year olds) that the school would 'force' (peer pressure, competition, punishment of class for you not doing, etc) kids to get fliers of absolute utter garbage merchandise at exorbitant prices, and then go door-to-door selling these items. And the public school would get some unknown kickback for sales.
I remember when my parents said no to this, the teacher in class said "Since tarotuser won't sell anything, the class can never get a pizza party".
But... as a worse thought, that would indicate that Instacart et al should be able to target any age group, since gig-work is endorsed by the public school system and technically isn't "employment". But we all know better.
I think attributing any sort of emotion to them is out of place.
I'd argue that there's complete antipathy at the politician and elite level. And that turns "illegal child labor" into a cost of doing business. And from the looks of it, a quite lucrative form of doing business.
I think you're misjudging the emotions (I'd argue they have none). I don't think you're insane.
You're not wrong. I think I use the word `hate` because the status quo is to squeeze the average person out more and more. So since they "don't care", that lack of care ends up being the same as if they hated us.
It starts to invoke a bit of concept creep (e.g. how more people use trauma to describe an everyday bad experience) to describe it as hate.
I'm guessing the commenter (or the royal you) wouldn't be comfortable being labeled as someone who hates Chinese laborers who build Iphones, or the laborers in India who scrap toxic ships left to die, just because you own an Iphone, or bought something that was shipped from overseas and aren't taking much action.
I would also call out that it's a bit of a concept creep to call you insane by that commenter.
This is the "Tolarian Community College" (a play on words from the MtG card game).
Without having to watch the video, this Youtuber does a lot of reviews and content on the game. During the course of reviews, he gets a lot of free merchandise. To that end, he then gives it freely to his subscribers.
The problem: there's a deluge of bots that nearly-instantly post on comments and threads in Youtube that redirect unsuspecting users to scammer Telegram channels, Discords, and etc. The common scam is "pay for shipping and you get free stuff". (this youtuber pays for the shipping if sending free product)
To compound this, this is definitely an automated bot driven attack on not only current videos, but also all his historical videos. And Youtube/Google/Alphabet doesn't provide anywhere near the tools to counter these types of botstorms.
He pleas for anyone working at Youtube etc to get in touch and/or make tools available to disable these scammers.
Someone from YouTube creator team commented back but on the thread but it's pretty generic -- that they're working on new tools and they're just as frustrated.
It's a well done video explaining the problem and really the frustration of creators who are fighting these bots and haven't given up.
I've seen this sort of telegram bot attack on dozens of channels. It's not targeting him so much as its across all of youtube for channels with enough subscribers. Youtube is completely failing to keep the bots out of the comments.
I don't see an exploit. I see a negotiation and a successful agreement of 6 of 9 parties. The analog to this in the real world is 2 pages stuck together, and the signer(s) didn't do their due diligence.
After all, wasn't the saying with shitcoin was that "The code is the contract, and the contract is the code"?
When the USA was early on, before and during the War of Independence, we routinely ignored the set of IP laws from European countries.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-copyright...
And China DOES enforce IP laws in China. They just don't enforce USA copyright laws, cause it's not the USA. And The USA doesn't enforce Chinese IP laws.
Eventually, the IP laws will be mutually respected. It'll take time. But in the meantime, this is more a trade dispute. That means that larger vendors need to be legally forced to stop shipment and sale of said violating items, and CBP needs to do more in stopping shipments coming in-country.