zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
Every day we stray farther from the premise that we should be allowed to install / modify software on the computers we own.

Will once again re-up the concept of a “right to root access”, to prevent big corps from pulling this bs over and over again: https://medhir.com/blog/right-to-root-access

>>medhir+Lg1
The question really isn't whether we should be able to modify computers we own, its whether we own them at all.

>>_heimd+Cj1
The question of how private property, intellectual property and posession/ownership should work is indeed something humanity hasn't properly figured out yet.

But if anything, regular people should have more of the cake.

>>_def+gm1
We have! The only problem is a very limited amount of legal decisions accidentally paved the way for a massive dystopia. In particular, the first sale doctrine [1] solves everything immediately.

The courts assumed good faith with a licensing exception, and maybe it was. But that opened the door to essentially completely dismantle the first-sale doctrine. Get rid of that loophole and all this stupidity ends, immediately. Well that and the DMCA. Once you buy something, it's yours to do whatever you want to do with it short of replicating it for commercial benefit.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

>>somena+Wq1
We also need regulation to prevent unbreakable hardware locks. Integrating the locks deep into VLSI makes removing them unrealistic.

As a more specific way to do this, I'd like to see any software that hardware companies make for their own hardware designated (at the choice of the company) as either part of the hardware or a separate product. In the former case, it must be made available under GPLv3 with full anti-tivoization provisions. In the latter case, it must use only public and documented interfaces and must be completely realistic for another company to make a competing product on a level playing field. Ideally the separate products would also need to be highly cross platform if technically feasible where the burden of showing that it isn't is on the developer.

>>john01+QL1
I'm not sure if we need regulations preventing it as much as we need regulations that manufacturers have to make it clear before buying the product.

Informed consent goes a long way.

>>_heimd+a54
Most users don't understand the higher order effects of lack of ownership, if they care at all when it doesn't impact convenience in an obvious way. This information already exists before purchase, but it doesn't move sales among the masses where the money is made. The result is zero viable ownership respecting products for those of us who care: all modern CPUs have IME or equivalent, all modern cars are infested with proprietary spyware, all phones at reasonable prices¹ don't fully embrace user ownership in various ways. This also has higher order effects that affect everyone, such as car insurance having an involuntary data mine on anyone who drives a modern car.

1: the exception that I'm thinking of here is fair phone, and it isn't much of an exception.

>>john01+lZ4
I just don't see a problem with customers ignoring or not caring about the details as long as its clear. If a car manufacturer makes clear, for example, that you aren't allowed to work on the car you are buying yourself and the person still buys it that's their choice.

>>_heimd+hD5
A practical one is that many industries have extreme barriers to entry and are dominated by a small number of players, with minimal chance of an upstart competitor showing up.

And if it so happens that engaging in some sort of anti-customer behavior is profitable, then it's entirely viable that all major players adopt it, even if they don't necessarily overtly collude.