This is one of the few places where the USA has a sensible solution. In 2015, my org (Themade.org) worked with Archive.org, MIT, the EFF, and Harvard Law to obtain a DMCA 1201 exemption for legal DRM circumvention for the case of single player games where online validation servers have ceased operations.
Thanks to the hard work of these organizations, the US market, at least, allows for those who purchased these games to continue to play them with a third party patch to their client. See below:
Happens ALL the time. Players even figure out how to emulate MMO servers by sniffing network traffic. When people want to play the game, they will find a way.
I'm not saying it does not "happen ALL the time", but this proposed EU law would make that job easier for the third party solutions, instead of "hoping" for one.
You are talking about the attempted exception in 2024. The 2015 exemption expires every 2 years and has to be renewed and to my knowledge it was renewed during this last effort, as it had been every 2 years since it was granted. The article you linked has nothing to do with the 2015 exemption. It only has to do with a proposed exemption that was not given in 2024.
Been using this for a while. It's evolving rapidly and the team behind it is very responsive and passionate. Very excited to see this evolve over time! The only thing that it really needs going forward is more Retroarch cores ported to JavaScript, but that's an upstream problem.
We just added support for Doom and Amstract CPC in today's patch release! It's been available upstream for a while now so we just had to enable it. There's also a new update for EmulatorJS coming soon (currectly in beta testing), and I've been thinking of releasing a custom image with the nightly/beta build for testing...
Some of what I am about to say is highlighted in this article but I think it should be restated:
The Adam came with a dot matrix printer. All in one giant box. I know because I found one at the flea for $30 once, and I had to carry it for a mile to the car. Very heavy and awkward.
To turn on the Adam, first, you plug the printer into the wall, then you plug the computer into the printer. Then you make absolutely sure there is nothing in the tape drive. Then you turn it on.
If you had a tape in the tape drive when you turned it on, so much juice went through the thing that it demagnetized anything in the drive. Back then, using audio tapes to hold data was revolutionary, in terms of storage space and price. The payoff, however, was that it was slower than anything you've ever used in the modern day. It could take 30 minutes to load something into the system through a tape.
So imagine waiting all that time, and then finding out it just doesn't work (no error message, just a hung machine) because you left the tape in the drive when you turned it on. You'd basically have to leave the thing on and loading for hours before finally giving up because of lost data.
This thing came with a Buck Rogers game, and that's what everyone wanted to play. The Coleco (formerly a Leather company) folks were overflowed with complaints and angry phone calls as everyone and their mother put that tape in and fired it up, first thing. An absolute travesty of a computer, all the way around the block.
It was a daisy wheel printer. No graphics, but "letter quality".
> Back then, using audio tapes to hold data was revolutionary, in terms of storage space and price.
Those aren't ordinary cassettes - while it is possible to make an Adam cassette out of a normal audio cassette, it's a somewhat involved process. There was hardware sold back then to do it, as the Adam itself couldn't.
>> Back then, using audio tapes to hold data was revolutionary, in terms of storage space and price.
> Those aren't ordinary cassettes
Years earlier, my Color Computer (from that other leather company, Tandy) was reading and writing to ordinary cassettes (also sold by Radio Shack).
The folks I knew who could afford Apple IIs had the cash to spend on floppy drives but I think their computers supported cassettes.
I had friends in pre-Adam days who had Commodores and one with a TI-99, all of which had plain old cassette storage, too. In the 70s-80s that was slow but affordable. This was anything but revolutionary for the Adam.
I don't think so. Dot matrix covers the niches where impact printers make sense and laser and inkjets cover those where they don't. There might be someone making typewriters, but I don't think any of those can be (easily) used as a printer.
I'm looking into converting one into a teletype by doing a MITM between keyboard and logic board.
> Back then, using audio tapes to hold data was revolutionary, in terms of storage space and price. The payoff, however, was that it was slower than anything you've ever used in the modern day. It could take 30 minutes to load something into the system through a tape.
No, use of audio cassettes to store data was well established when the Adam came out. The difference was that it was much faster than other home computers, which typically used a standard cassette deck, or something close to it.
While it's true that early production machines had reliability problems, the same was also true for the C64. The machine we got for xmas 1983 was as solid as a tank.
The tapes were extremely robust and resistant to abuse, much more so than floppy disks. I tried to fry tapes, and couldn't.
For games, the tape drives were surprisingly effective. Sequential data transfer rates are faster than the C64 disk drive, and unlike the C64 they operate independently from the main CPU, with DMA access to the full 64 kB address space.
This means that many games were up and running in seconds and could load upcoming levels in the background while you were playing the game.
(The tape drives were much less effective for random-access, file-based storage, as the seek times were obviously atrocious compared to a disk drive.)
First-party software was also very high quality.
The problem was the business plan. Coleco made the same mistake as Atari and Texas Instruments, in that the business plan was modelled after the game console business. The tapes were expensive and proprietary when they didn't need to be, and the 3rd-party software ecosystem was completely locked down. Technical info was unavailable for hobbyists and independent developers.
By the time the Adam is released, the C64 and Apple IIe are already entrenched in the home markets with exponentially expanding library of independent software. The Adam's locked-down ecosystem couldn't complete.
It only took one year for hobbyists to completely reverse engineer the Adam, at which point some interesting independent software starts to appear. But by that time the business was already dead.
> Sequential data transfer rates are faster than the C64 disk drive
The C64 disk interface is notoriosuly broken. The C64 and the 15x1 drives effectively had the same relatively fast processor but with a tiny pipe connecting the two.
Mullvad swinging for the fences suddenly. They have a billboard in South San Francisco, too. Did they get a cash infusion? Why all of the sudden are they expanding? Honestly, I'd have changed the name by now...
> Did they get a cash infusion? Why all of the sudden are they expanding?
No cash infusion. We've been growing for years, just like many other VPN services. We're still quite a bit smaller than e.g. Nord and Express though.
As for our choice of advertising, we don't run an affiliate program, nor do we want to track our customers through online ads, so we're trying this instead. It's cheaper than you might think.
Sorry for hijacking the thread, but I'm too curious not to ask: is having censorship circumvention out of the box a non-goal for Mullvad?
Because there are VPNs with good censorship circumvention tech, and there are VPNs with good privacy guarantees, but I know none which can provide both. What Mullvad offers now is either a decade old stuff which is blocked even by subpar DPI solutions, or a set of (more modern) protocol bridges which are painful to setup and sometimes IP-banned.
Mullvad's mission is to make mass surveillance AND online censorship ineffective. So yes, we do intend to offer excellent censorship circumvention out of the box.
Having said that we have clearly prioritized privacy for a long time. For what it's worth we have several censorship improvements on the roadmap. Stay tuned.
I already see shadowsocks which is nice. I'm still forced to use V2ray and xray-core in some rejoins though so I route traffic from my device -> xray -> my server -> wireguard mullvad. Works for now I suppose. Also been experimenting with routing small amounts of traffic through the syncthing relay network since they have relays running locally which may be in less restrictive provinces
Interesting. Try reaching out to Mullvad's support as well if you haven't done so already. If I'm not mistaken they conduct censorship circumvention experiments from time to time together with customers. I'm sure they'd also be interested to hear about any long-term resilient low-bandwidth channels you've found, such as the syncthing relay network. Those are very useful for bootstrapping and configuration updates.
Hey. Silly thought. I used to have the idea that Mullvad is the only VPN I trust because the founders seemed ideologically motivated (I guess from some interview I read, don't remember for sure). But advertising seems to undermine that view. Maybe I was just naive.
Hi! I used to think that the product should speak for itself, only grow by word of mouth, and that it was wrong to do any advertising. Part of me still thinks that.
On the other hand we ran a very political advertising campaign one-two years ago when we protested a new EU law proposal. We plastered Stockholm's airport in billboards targeting EU politicians and journalists. We published a book and sent copies to several hundred politicians. It was quite a success. Incidentally our office was raided by the Swedish police a month later - the first time in 14 years.
I really appreciate your feedback. Are you able to pinpoint more exactly why you feel that our advertising undermines trust in our brand? Is it simply the fact that we're advertising at all?
Our marketing team works hard to ensure that our advertising doesn't make security guarantees we can't keep, or sell the product through fear-mongering. I feel that we've found a set of advertising messages that work, but clearly it still causes some unease and skepticism.
Perhaps it's simply a worry that we'll change because Mullvad is growing up and is no longer an obscure underdog?
I really hope they don't change the name, I like the name "Mullvad" (Mole in Swedish) and "Leta" (Search in Swedish) and everything doesn't need to be Anglo centric in the appeal :)
Although the society is almost zero privacy, it have historically had some funny IT figures for privacy and digital issues so people searching up for the background of the name might stumble upon it.
I'm guessing they won't change the name. It's a similar branding strategy as ikea, with "funny" nordic (specifically swedish, but other brands have done it with norweigan and danish too) names that for some people makes it sound quaint and quality.
In (American, at least) English, there's a very common pattern of vowel reduction on unstressed syllables, resulting in "schwa-ification" [0][1] where all such vowels become indistinguishable from each other.
In this case, we say "duh lorr uhss" instead of "do lor ez". The second one doesn't sound like clitoris at all, but the first one.. okay it doesn't sound similar to me either, but it's closer at least.
I have to say that, the vast majority of the time, the way I've heard and said the word "clitoris" doesn't rhyme at all with "Dolores," so I wouldn't have been able to guess it either.
They were one of the earliest to adopt bitcoin and monero payments--if they didn't convert all those payments immediately to cash, they're probably sitting pretty right now.
They also have a partnership with Tailscale that can't be undersold.
I'm not sure how much it adds to their bottom line for each sale, but my corp was using the Mullvad VPN addition to tailscale to do global testing by our developers.
IE; "is something blocked, do we detect GEOIP properly" etc;
> there's definitely been a lottery win or a series A
We have neither won the lottery nor taken on outside investment. We've been growing for years, and we've reached a point where we can afford campaigns like this. It is an interesting experiment by our marketing team. Still, I think people on HN overestimate the cost of campaigns like this.
My concern is that when they can advertise to the extent they do, to what extent can they really be trusted? Anything that popular is going to be a target by law enforcement, and we really have no way of verifying any of their claims.
Yeah, this advertising to the masses push makes me queasy. It has the reverse effect on me than was intended. Weird brand self-harm for a privacy/data hygiene oriented company.
Same, but on the train at the DC airport. I liked that they align their actions with their mission. Physical ads like this are perfect way to advertise a privacy tool, as their ads respect user privacy.
I had to switch to iVPN last year (similar ethos), because Mullvad became pretty much unusable due to blacklisting and laggy DNS servers.
I'm assuming it has something to do with the push in recent years to expand their userbase, but they don't seem to be able to keep a clean enough pool of IPs like the big popular ones to cope. I know all VPNs struggle with this but it was getting ridiculous, where every single server in a country would receive infinite re-captcha.
iVPN is a great choice in terms of security, they also use STboot, but I think you're just flying under the radar with their IPs because they struggle with the same problems as Mullvad.
Yes, it only works better because the obscurity to IP ratio is good. It could easily be as bad as mullvad if they became more popular. But as I understand it the really popular VPNs address this with huge pools of servers and IP cycling?
One other issue I had with Mullvad that put the nail in the coffin for me was randomly laggy DNS resolvers, they would get fixed just by the time I start investigating it, but it kept happening... I say this as a mostly happy user for probably 7 years, but then found myself having to turn it off more than on to be able to access most sites.
> where every single server in a country would receive infinite re-captcha.
What does that even mean? Have you also disabled cookies?
Typically it's a Cloudflare captcha if you're doing that, not a re-captcha. And afaik pretty much everyone gets this treatment with zero history. Welcome to the modern web.
They’re referring to the situation when a service has blacklisted you, but will pretend they haven’t and give you captcha after captcha to keep you busy.
Yup, I found a shortcut to determining this is to use the audio option, which will instantly admit you are blocked due to "suspicious network activity" rather than make you solve stuff - i guess because of accessibility?
Cloudflare recently started holding stackoverflow hostage as well. "Weird" OS + "weird" browser + cookie autodelete = www is hell, even on clearnet. I hate cloudflare so much it's unreal, including everyone who works for them, for enabling this nonsense.
So, I happen to know a bit about this because his cult compound is a state park in Florida, in Bonita Springs. Highly recommend visiting! Say hi to the loose big turtles!
The park is presented as a lovely old commune with vintage bungalows, a rare place where women actually ran things in the late 1800's and had a lot of freedom within the community to create art, plays, and raise their kids. A lot of the women were widows and this was basically the only option for them aside from marrying their dead husband's brother, or some other arcane ritual of the day. They paid for the upkeep and food for the "commune" by staging plays, and the men dealt with the outside world and negotiated for such transactions (to keep up external appearances of a patriarchy, something that was totally expected back then.)
My wife and I were touring the place, having a good old time, and when we entered the community gathering hall/church, my wife started slapping my arm repeatedly to get my attention. She's gasping for air in an almost shocked laughter. She pointed to the giant model of the split-open Earth as interior, like the one shown at the top this article. The whole commune were hollow Earthers!!
Of course, the bloom was then very much off the rose. A few things to know about Teed, in addition to the hollow Earth stuff, which we subsequently learned by reading more deeply into the interpretive museum text, therein:
1: Teed believed he was Jesus Christ, or at least, that he would come back with Christ. When he died, the cult left him on the porch for a few weeks, waiting for him to get back up. The Sheriff had to come and demand they bury him, because the stink was so bad from the rotting corpse in the hot Florida sun. A testament to the power of belief, or delusion, you decide.
2: The last Koreshanty-ist (As they were called) born and living on the Florida property admitted she was wrong about the Earth when she watched the moon landing on TV in 1969 in her bungalow.
3: Teed believed his theory was true because he said if you walked in a flat, straight line in any direction, you would eventually hit an incline. This was absolutely true! BECAUSE THEY LIVED IN A SWAMP.
4: Of course, 100% as expected, despite the ladies running the cult via committee and being very free in the cult society... All men except Teed were to remain celibate, but--OMG!-- there were plenty of babies! Teed 100% did the cult leader thing and had relations with every woman on the property. That's the real reason he built the cult.
The 1980's when Reagan turned this country upside down and showed the GOP that cutting taxes wins them elections, even if it makes the debt go out of control and you can no longer pay for anything the government buys.
Hotline was the greatest single platform for the Macintosh in the 1990s. First Class was great, but Hotline was SO simple, you just pop in a tracker address, fire up the server, point it at 1 folder on your HDD and yer out there, as a pirate BBS server host on the internet hosting those brand new things, MP3's and those wildly hard to gather NES roms, or that illicit copy of Adobe Photoshop 4.5.
Hotline took the AOL script kiddies from #Zelifcam and put them on the real big boy Internet without any restrictions or repercussions. It was glorious time. I still have a Big Red H necklace given to me by the I-forgot-his-name author of the platform.
I brought my whole Mac 6 hours away to my aunt's for Thanksgiving one year so I could download a bunch of bigger umm... items off of Hotline since they had brand-new stunningly fast several-megabit cable internet when I just had barely better than dialup ADSL at home. It was amazing.
I did the same once, or similar - I took an external 500mb SCSI HDD to a family friend's office so I could load up stuff from my favorite servers at then-mind-boggling speeds, on their trusty G3 if I recall correctly. I couldn't believe how fast the transfers were! Definitely loaded up that drive hahaha :)
Hell yeah, it was the best. I still remember finding "Tempo/MacQuake Palace", which was the most glorious combinations of things I thought I could find - Mac OS Tempo[0] and the unauthorized Quake source port for Mac! Amazing stuff at the time.
(on that note, wow, I have not heard "zelifcam" in a very long time! haha)
Confession: I ran that. Sorry, Apple– that was wrong!
If I recall correctly, I'd grab the latest version from a private Hotline site, then re-host it on my public server backed by a cable modem, whose name you got right. I loved Quake too.
I'm not sure that all was healthy at the time, and I like to imagine I'm over such distractions, but here I am..
Ah man, that's amazing. It's insanely cool to hear from you! Thank you for hosting!! It's such a strong memory for me, hopping on Hotline and finding just how much amazing stuff was on there -- your server is one of very very few I remember the name of! I was so excited to try a pre-release version of Mac OS and even moreso a port of Quake for Mac! I had first played the demo/beta while I was taking a course at the local university, but I didn't have any Windows machine at home so it was SO LONG before I could play Quake. I was so thankful to be able to play, even with the brutal low framerate I had to suffer with on my Performa 5260/120. Yeah, I ran a server as well back then, definitely fun times (and great memories around all that), even if it wasn't something I could keep doing forever.
Example: I heard the leader of the West Coast Vintage Computer Club remark, recently "Well, the problem is the Department of Education! We need to get rid of that!"
The entire Project 2025 gives me chills, to be honest. I know Trump has distanced himself from it previously, but who knows what will he actually do when given the keys to the country.
The dumber the people, the more they love Trump. It's a legit strategy, but I never thought people who'd benefited from American' education would buy into this shit and pull up the ladder!
This is a cautionary tale for preservationists. My current preservation project is still not open because we are very slowly reviewing the code to make sure we don't accidentally include any IP when we open the source code. The real things that get you are similar to what happened here: codecs, graphics libraries, and a really big one to look out for is fonts. It'd be great if there was a scanner that could detect this stuff, but unfortunately, the scanning tools out there tend to go the other way like Black Duck: they detect open source code, not closed source.
The thing is, the vast majority of graphics libraries from 1992 the IP owner no longer cares about, and the code usually has nearly zero commercial value.
I wish more were brave enough to just publish it with an open license, and then if the owner complains you take it down and rewrite.
Any damages for distributing 30 year old source code are hopefully in the single-digit-dollars range anyway.
Completely incorrect. This work is being done under a non-profit, and whether or not the original owners care is irrelevant. Doing this would immediately open the non-profit to litigation and endanger the entire project. Just because we don't think anyone cares doesn't mean we won't get sued.
This project is preserving the source code around a distributed chat system from the year 2000, the E programming language, and the first real usage of JSON. Outside of those aspects, it's not about preserving fonts and proprietary code.
You are literally suggesting that we take proprietary, copyrighted code and release it under an open source license with no standing, rights, or ownership. It's insane to even suggest this. If you put the source code for Windows 95 online, you'd be sued into a pile of ashes by MS within 10 minutes.
When we want to open source proprietary code, we work with the rights holders. This code was all given to us under such an agreement, and the agreement ONLY covers the code owned by the people who built this thing. The deal was contingent on us not opening any of the code the original owners didn't own, as that would ALSO incur risk for them.
> If you put the source code for Windows 95 online, you'd be sued into a pile of ashes by MS within 10 minutes.
The Windows NT 4 source code exists in multiple public repos on GitHub, and the one from the first Google result has been there for at least four years.
> You are literally suggesting that we take proprietary, copyrighted code and release it under an open source license with no standing, rights, or ownership. It's insane to even suggest this. If you put the source code for Windows 95 online, you'd be sued into a pile of ashes by MS within 10 minutes.
What's isane is that you are not legally allowed to release code that hasn't had any commercial value whatsoever for ages or where it takes a full legal team to even find out who might "own" the rights. Copyright is positively bonkers.
As the video games people know, piracy is preservation and preservation nearly always requires "piracy". It's very clear from the way the Internet Archive works that pre-emptively taking a copy without permission is the only way to guarantee that copies actually exist.
> You are literally suggesting that we take proprietary, copyrighted code and release it under an open source license with no standing, rights, or ownership. It's insane to even suggest this. If you put the source code for Windows 95 online, you'd be sued into a pile of ashes by MS within 10 minutes.
Yeah, legal preservation efforts will probably never get that. The torrent is still out there if you just want to look at it, though.
but if courts gave out damages of $10 for this sort of offence (taking into account the very low commercial value of the IP stolen), then very few people would even bother pursuing it in court.
Courts do not do that. The people suing would offer up a big old list of damages into the millions and then negotiate down from there to something like 6 figures AND the loser covering the court costs. The American legal system is completely broken, and amounts to two people piling up money, then the one with the bigger stack wins both stacks of money. This is completely untenable for a non-profit to even think about, let alone to incur the risk.
>> The people suing would offer up a big old list of damages into the millions and then negotiate down from there
You're assuming an awful lot with this.
- No defendant is going to negotiate a settlement out of court. They would force you to hire an attorney and force this to a trial because of how absurd it is.
Then you would be left with other major issues:
- One that any IP law firm would take a case like this on to begin with.
- The little upside for any firm litigating a case where the software is 30+ years old, effectively abandoned and has little if any resell value.
- Then even if some firm did want to take a swing at it, getting this in front of a judge who would even consider the case would be a huge hurdle as well. We're not even considering having to deal with a jury trial either which would also be even harder to win.
- Even if the defendant refused to negotiate pre-trial, and you somehow managed to finagle yourself into a civil bench or jury trial, trying to convince anybody that the plaintiff has somehow sustained financial damages on 30+ year old software that is no longer being used and has no resale value is almost impossible.
The US courts are not perfect, but these kinds of cases rarely see the inside of a court room and for good reason.
OK, so my non-profit with a budget of about $200,000 a year is now expected to lawyer up and take on this risk, where some random company can just sidle up to us, sue us for X, and automatically win because we cannot possibly afford a lawyer to even respond to their litigation?
I love how utterly diconnected from reality HN comments are. Y'all seem to think that just because you can rationalize something on paper that we should all just go out and do the thing because the laws are "Stupid." If the world ran like HN thought it did, we'd have no copyright laws, no patents, and infinite free legal advice and services. Yeah, yer right, maybe we could get a sympathetic judge or get the case tossed. After we spend $100,000 on lawyers to get there. Oh, the prosecution would have to pay our legal fees you say? Great, now I'm out $100,000 waiting on the appeal, and it could take years for them to pay up. That's like giving them a $100,000 loan with 0 interest and no defined closing date.
And what's even the upside? I ruined my non-profit so I could spuriously open source some random crap I don't even want to preserve. I have the binaries already, I don't need to recompile. But hey, no one is using this stuff right? Fuck the law!
The world does not work this way. If a lawyer shows up and wants to kill a small non-profit, they can do it in a day, very easily. They don't even need the courts, they just have to sue you and then bomb you with 50,000 pages of evidence. This is a REAL tactic. How do you counter that without paying a lawyer to look at all 50,000 pages? The key is to not give them a reason to do so. You know, by not breaking the fucking law.
I have been trying to preserve a game engine which has had an important following. But there has just been so many hands in the code, there is a lot of trepidation of the risk it could open the companies up too. Not sure how to progress from here.
Email me at alex@themade.org and we can chat about options and methods. I've done this a bunch and we can usually figure out a way to meet the needs and keep risk at bay, but we will need to talk to the original rights holders, even if the thing was sold off 5 times to new companies. Usually, when I cold call the head of legal about this type of thing, they have absolutely no idea what IP I am talking about, even when their company owns it 100%, and this usually helps a lot to get them to open up. "We own what? Oh, and a museum wants to work with us? Cool!"
I suppose it could be done, like those plagiarism databases used for academic work. Security would need to be tighter though. It's a hard thing if the source code needs to be protected I suppose.
Unpopular opinion: preservationism shouldn't care about licensing and legal nonsense.
Because what is the point if something is distributed in a restrictive license, can't be preserved and then gets lost to time? Also, licensing is to avoid distribution, modification or outright copying by competitors; preservation is completely orthogonal to those concerns. It is to avoid losing a piece of craft to the sands of time. There is no reason laws should have power over anything in perpetuity.
As seen in other spaces, pirates ignoring the "law" will provide the greatest service to humanity.
>preservationism shouldn't care about licensing and legal nonsense.
If it is reasonable that someone needs to preserve something because it has been abandoned, then the thing should automatically be in the public domain.
If you are not actively using IP for a reasonable amount of time, any patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc should be permanently expired.
This fixes problems with patent trolls too: you effectively would not be able to own a patent unless you were using it in your business.
Great idea except it won't make anyone money. Therefore it will never happen. Copyright law in America is not based on good ideas, reasonability, or even preservation. They are based on profit. Your idea is great, but we do not live in a world where good ideas matter at all. Only money matters here, and this idea will not make anyone money.
It's not a great idea, because law and policy are designed to privilege makers rather than takers. It's a subversive degenerate kind of morality to argue that things belong to the people who desire to consume them.
The copyright clause of the US constitution, at least, is explicit that the artifice of temporary monopoly for copyright holders exists for the benefit of society as a whole, not (supposedly) for the rightsholders themselves. The benefit for rightsholders (who are only sometimes the 'makers' anyway) is merely instrumental.
It's the notion that IP is about protecting some kind of natural right that is a perversion, both historically (evinced in such language as the copyright clause) and ethically (I assert).
I agree and privilege is one of the ways you solve that.
Like the privilege of being less bound to engage in survival and political struggles. Evolution produced a world where if you want something, you have to take it. Makers aren't good at taking things because they're too busy making. The natural order is that makers would be marked for deletion, which is how it was for million of years before economies came into being that could support them. Since we know that life is good for everyone when stuff gets made, society is better off as a whole when it goes out of its way to support its makers, since giving makers more means they'll make more. OTOH if you lift up takers they'll just use it to take more.
The greatest most successful takers all know this, which is why many of them become philanthropists. Since there's not much point being a taker if there's nothing left to take. Once you've taken everything, the only way you can take more is by getting makers to make more. The supreme takers also set up things like governments, which claim dominion over all the makers and punish all the little takers who try to take from them. The little takers of course weep and wail about why the makers get a special set of rules, but that's where they get it wrong, because rather than being angry at the makers, the little takers should be modeling themselves after the supreme takers.
In modernity, the set of rules that the supreme takers put in place hundreds of years ago to protect the makers included things like intellectual property. However those rules are just that, arbitrary rules, and they don't cover up the underlying reality of what they sought to accomplish, which is privilege. If those rules don't work anymore, then the system will simply do something else to achieve its goals, which include elevating the universe to a higher state of existence and creating a better life for everyone.
I see what you're saying now. Your brief analysis has a lot in common with analyses of class conflict and progress that are common in Marxism, though with some stark differences from many as well (e.g., pessimism about the likelihood of self-conscious class activity for makers, no indication of the possibility or goal of a "makers' state" or classless society, maybe a more whiggish or teleological notion of dialectical progress than is fashionable in contemporary Marxism).
Not exactly how I see things, but insightful and concisely put. Thanks for taking the time to write it out!
I don't have a horse in any race, so I aim to be descriptive rather than prescriptive in my analysis, and I make an effort to choose neutral language that will resonate with people from many backgrounds and beliefs. I'm glad you felt my analysis shared common themes with Marxism. I've studied them and know a lot about them. I also hope capitalists would find things to feel inspired about in my words too.
Justine is an impressive hacker, several of whose projects have made their way to the front page of this site before. She's plenty smart and that's plain to see.
Calling her stupid isn't a good way to show her (or anyone) that she's wrong about this.
Except "once it has been abandoned" is often too late because the source code/artwork/whatever has been lost by then. We need to make sure that things can be and will be archived before that.
> If it is reasonable that someone needs to preserve something because it has been abandoned, then the thing should automatically be in the public domain.
Yeah, you go ahead and get that through every Western government. We'll fix the rest.
Just because the whole is more or less abandoned (although I still use winamp, currently running a build from Dec 21, 2022), doesn't mean the licensed parts are.
If the rights holders of the licensed bits haven't abandoned them, then it's not really fair to distribute them without their consent.
This. I cannot believe people are telling me to just open everything. It's nuts. Imagine if someone found your personal code and just decided to open it without your permission or knowledge!
My personal code isn't licensed, so there is nothing that stops you from doing that if you get your hands on my hard drive. What has licensing got to do with it?
Also, we're not talking about personal code either, but something that is arguably a product humanity, or a part thereof, would want to preserve for posterity.
Lastly, no one is telling you to open anything. I am saying that if someone decides something you have created need to be preserved, they should go ahead. You can protest, you can sue, the point is it shouldn't stop anyone from trying. Which doesn't apply to this case, as the owner of Winamp actually wanted to make it open source.
OK, but again, people are telling me to take code I do not own the rights to, and to release it under an open source license. That's 100% illegal. This is the equivalent of me taking a Stephen King novel and pasting it into a webpage and attaching a Creative Commons license. That does NOT make the Stephen King novel open source. It just gets me in trouble and sued.
And the license matters. We're talking about something owned by a company somewhere, legally. Humanity's concerns don't matter in business and legal affairs. As I stated above, I agree that we should be able to save everything. But this has nothing at all to do with what's good for humanity. This is about money and copyright law.
Also, OK, your personal code is not licensed. Great, now I can take it and license it myself, copyright it myself, and then sue you for hosting it in your github account. Hey, I'd be in the wrong, but if I lawyer up I can just win by spending money and waiting you out. This is the world we live in. It's not good, but it's reality.
> OK, but again, people are telling me to take code I do not own the rights to, and to release it under an open source license.
Who is telling you that? Literally no one. In my original comment, the preservationist is NOT the author, as it's the author that is liable to be sued by releasing proprietary material.
In my comment, the preservationist is a third-party that should NOT be concerned with such matters, even if being forbidden by copyright law. Imagine the Internet Archive, which already operate this way, and I applaud, because the service they offer is better than if they had to respect all legal nonsense.
No one is telling you to do anything with YOUR code, and code you are legally liable for. No one is putting a pistol to your head, so I don't get why you are being so defensive to my admittedly unpopular opinion. Do whatever you want.
preservationism allows you to bypass "legal nonsense"? That's some entitlement you have. So basically, laws don't matter to you. People's life work don't matter? It's ok for you to take what somebody created in the name of preservation. I bet you wouldn't be saying this if you created and released something that you rely on as your income.
> There is no reason laws should have power over anything in perpetuity.
Laws are simply rules chosen and enforced by a given society. Having power over things is what they do. (Also, "in perpetuity" seems untrue, as all copyright expires eventually.)
You clearly disagree with the laws (and I'm inclined to support you there), but what is special about preservation that it should automatically override the will of society? Nearly all the combined work of humanity has been "lost to time," and society seems pretty okay with that.
> Nearly all the combined work of humanity has been "lost to time," and society seems pretty okay with that.
Pre-digital age, preserving the combined work of humanity was actually quite difficult. The cost to preserve everything outside of "obviously important" artifacts would've been preventative (or even impossible) for society as a whole.
I believe many (if not most) folks native to the digital age believe that digital artifacts should be preserved indefinitely by default - as the cost in doing so is comparatively trivial - and laws in democratic nations will catch up to that.
Hey I agree 100%. We live in a time and place where we could put about 10-Refridgerators-worth of computer and storage into the basement of every library in the world, and fill those drives with every book, painting, movie, song, etc... EVRYTHING all in one place, replicated around the world a million times over..
We could do this. The technology exists. But we, as humans, as a society and as a race of beings, have collectively decided that we will not do this: It doesn't make anyone any money.
For the first time in history, we could store all of human knowledge in a safe replicable way, world wide, for everyone. But we specifically choose not to do this.
No, I am not ignoring them. I know Archive very well. They do not preserve copyrighted content deliberately, it just gets uploaded, and when no one comes and complains it stays up. They remove things ALL the time. All of the Atari 2600 games from Atari itself, for example. Atari's current owners showed up and asked Jason to take those down, and he did. And he thanked them for the privilege and said they were very nice.
I ADORE Archive. But guess what, they're being sued into the ground over doing EXACTLY what we all want them to do: preserving things. If anything, this absolutely 100% proves my point: we have 1 example of a modern Library of Alexandria, and it is in danger because someone is upset they didn't get paid. This is even more than choosing as a society not to save information and our culture. This is being outright HOSTILE towards the idea.
That argument is almost entirely about the length of copyright, and you're dismissing that with a quick "eventually". It's not about trying to "override" the intent of copyright.
Also copyright has a clear purpose, and the purpose is to promote culture and science, not to help things get lost. When works that people care about get lost, that's a flaw not a feature.
Because it's the only thing that will be left of us in 100, 500, 1000, 10000 years. Whatever we care to preserve today will be what will be left to our descendants. It always matters more than the profits of some company today that won't be around in 10, 20, 100 years. And before you try to argue that not everything is valuable, that's fucking not up to you to decide for our descendants.
> Nearly all the combined work of humanity has been "lost to time," and society seems pretty okay with that.
Works that were lost through things like war, conflict, migration, etc. Not through conscious choice. Copyright is a deliberate decision to prevent the collective preservation of our modern culture in favour of enriching corporations and the handful of people who own them. But that doesn't make it moral or right. And "society being okay with it" doesn't make it okay either.
Thanks to the hard work of these organizations, the US market, at least, allows for those who purchased these games to continue to play them with a third party patch to their client. See below:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/new-dmca-ss1201-exempt...
reply