Lightor @ Lightor @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

1,066

Joined

2 yr. ago

Jesus what a mess of a sentence. You really tried to hamfist that one in there.

How does one go about building their own government/economic system?

Hell ya, I would, too, 100%. Imagine actually owning a game with all of the content on a disk you can share and resell.

I agree with you, though; there is no incentive for companies to do this; they would make less money and have less control over the content. They can't stand that.

They also don't have to print games to discs and ship them around the world anymore.

They also don't have to develop their own engines. Some dude with little to no experience can make a functional game in a few days now. Not to mention functions in UE5 like LOD control do a lot of the work that devs had to handle.

They also have Moore’s Law on their side: The average laptop can now develop what required a $10,000 workstation in 2000.

They also now pack games with microtransactions to make even more money.

They also now sell DLC for games to make more money.

They also now re-release games, which takes a fraction of the effort and still charge a disproportionate price.

Games, objectively, should be cheaper. This is just the hunger for more and more.

I never said what Japan should be doing. Never once, that's you just auguring with yourself man lol. You don't even need me, you can just make up stuff I say and get mad about it all by yourself.

Ah yes, because unless you’re on a government payroll, you’re clearly unqualified to point out superficial policymaking. Must be nice to believe that calling out performative regulation is the same as claiming omniscience.

Must be huh? The combination of assumptions and ignorance is awesome. I mean lets ignore that the people making these decisions went to school for these things. What is your educational background to be making these claims? Or do you just know things and learned on Google, so you know how a country should handle these things.

GrapheneOS does primarily run on Pixel phones—because those are the only phones where the hardware allows verifiable, secure boot processes and full control over firmware. Samsung and most others lock down key components and make it impossible to truly sandbox or audit the system at the level GrapheneOS demands. That’s not a limitation of the OS—that’s a limitation of the closed, proprietary design of most Android OEMs.

Cool story bro, still makes your suggestion a garbage one.

If they actually wanted to disrupt the monopoly, they’d be mandating real platform openness—allowing non-Google OS installs, pushing for hardware-level access standards, and ensuring devices don’t lock out third-party operating systems or app ecosystems.

Yah, Japan should be pushing to control the specifics of how a company based in another country. That's the right move. This guy is big brain. Clearly.

But yeah, let’s all clap for another fine and pretend something changed.

No one is clapping about anything, they are just laughing at your nonsensical ranting.

This guy knows better than all of the professionals in the Japanese government, impressive. I mean he called out an OS that only runs on Google phones, but he's figured it out guys!

And they have infinitely less funding and marketing. They don't have the overhead but they don't have the benefits of that overhead either and will succeed.

This is really about late stage capitalism and chasing infinite growth. Every year profits must go up X percentage. There is never enough. So they have to find ways to make it to up, cutting wages and increasing prices is the obvious way.

I think UBI would actually solve a lot of issues, the creative communities' financial struggle being one of them.

The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?

Ok, and not every time a person wins there's a headline either, this is a moot point.

Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.

So, what is your point? People can win against big companies, even over IP. It has been done before, if you want I can list a bunch for you. I just researched to make sure I wasn't off base. You don't always have to have the most money to win. You know why? Because of IP law, the very thing you want to destroy.

There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.

Ok, and? Because a company makes money due to X doesn't automatically make X a bad thing. I've not seen one good plan laid out on how destorying IP would help the common man, it doesn't.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

No, but you are clearly implying something with "Copyright didn’t exist for millenia. It didn’t stop authors from writing books." This ignores that those authors couldn't have their work downloaded and spread across the globe in minutes. You are bringing this up to prove a point, but give how much things have changes over the last few hundred years, the point falls flat. It is irrelevant once you look at all the nuance and reasons why and how they were able to create.

What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.

They do allow them. They allow them to make money off of their art. Back in the day you didn't have an interconnected global economy, you didn't have to worry about retirement or your 401k, of course it was easier back then, late stage capitalism didn't set in. But IP laws are what protect creators these days, so they can take a year off of work and write a book and still be able to eat.

Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.

Yes, absolutely a good point. But because a system is broken is not a reason to get rid of it. The legal system is broken and millionaires just get away with crimes, should we just get rid of all the laws? No. We should work to make them better.

IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs.

Source needed. Because this is a bold claim, that based on what I can find, is not true. People sell IP to companies all the time, so yes they then benefit from it, but the creator of the IP gets paid.

You brought up how lives have probably been lost because of scientific journal IP. How many lives do you think will be lost when big pharma realizes there's no money in creating a vaccine for a new disease? Who is making that investment? The govt? lol

Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. It would directly impart them! The small artist who had a good beat or came up with some slick lyrics would have them jacked. Every production company would be scrapping small artists looking for what they could take or steal, with 0 impact. This also goes with authors and writing books. How can they sign a book deal when a publisher can't guarantee it won't just get copied and given away? They now have no reason to pay authors.

They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?

They ABOLUSTLY do benefit from it, you're just looking at it as a "less money needs less protection" lens which I highly disagree with. A small artist can have a lot going for them and miss their opportunity because they were stolen. Or they were sampled and never for paid but the person who sampled them got rich. I mean there are dozens of ways to see why this would be a problem. The least of which is, why even make music or movies anymore? If every movie and song ever created can be legally pirated, companies just stop making them.

IP laws help everyone. EVERYONE. Just because companies make money off of them doesn't make them bad. Just because small creators don't make a lot of money doesn't mean they shouldn't own what they create. Everyone in favor of this just seems to want stuff for free without realizing the impact of that choice, it's extremely shortsighted.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

The problem is a lot of Americans want this, they're cheering.

This is an example of where it didn't do nothing, it actually made things much worse.

Dissenting online is, believe it or not, how people become aware of issues and know they're not alone in how they feel. It's a precursor to actual events, like we've seen.

Yes, I have.

But how exactly does getting rid of IP laws since that exactly? Because that's what's being proposed.

This guy has no idea what nuance is.

The Boxers lead a rebellion in China and failed horribly, accelerating the very thing they were trying to stop. Guess rebellings is bad too.

What a bad faith argument.

Small companies have defend themselves from Apple. People make money from their inventions and writings. There are tons of examples. You're creating this idea of unbeatable huge corpos that isn't true. They don't always win, you can easily prove with with a 1 minute Google search.

They also don't want it just because of AI, this would enable them to steal and mass produce any IP anyone makes. This includes physical inventions.

Also copyright didn't exist for a long time and neither did the Internet or global trade. Times change. We went millennia without many things, it doesn't automatically make them wrong or bad. What a silly basis.

This is a bad faith argument.

Forms of IP have existed for a long time. And back in your days you didn't have one company that could have global reach in second.

You still ignore the fact that if I spend 5 years of my life writing a book, it could be taken away with no money to me. So people can no longer dedicate their lives to creating when they have bills to pay.

Yes, and I think this is how it should be looked at. It is a hyper focused and tailored search engine. It can provide info, but the "doing" not as well.

I like to think I'm smarter than at least most gorillas, and I would lose a fight to a bear in the woods. The bear is a car with claws and thick hide trying to kill you. It's faster and stronger than you. It also flights and kills to survive and eat often, gorillas do not.

I man that's a lot of assumptions. In that case, throw some cubs in there and the bear would fight to the death.