> the guy who wrote the education curriculum ought to be paid
He absolutely should be!
> how are they supposed to get a reasonable amount of money without denying non-payers access to their works
Good question! But I don't think there is a good answer to it that doesn't involve society at large, in one way or another. Why is enforcing DRM in order to protect some monopoly by society at large better than community investment into the technology by society at large?
> the "other ways" that we're trying to steer manufacturers away from are not a clearly delineated set of behaviors
I think that's case with all laws and all human behaviors. That's why we have judges, to make judgements.
> they'll cripple them in hardware
I think they should try that. So far they didn't - that's why they are doing it in software, because they now can.
> two different products with different features at two different prices
Yep, and if that happens, it's bad for economy overall, that's what I argue.
> I think they should try that. So far they didn't - that's why they are doing it in software, because they now can.
I heard it's common in computer parts manufacturing - they just add an additional production step where a laser cuts through some traces on the PCB to disconnect the part they don't want you to use in the cheaper model. Apparently customers got too good at reversing the softer methods of market segmentation.
Yes, you're right, it was the case in Intel 486 SX/DX.
All I am saying here that this is of course a waste of resources, even though I don't know how to prevent this sort of waste in our society.
(IMHO, bigger problem is for example throwing out foods by restaurants and supermarkets, which is also OK by doctrine of economic liberalism, yet wasteful.)
He absolutely should be!
> how are they supposed to get a reasonable amount of money without denying non-payers access to their works
Good question! But I don't think there is a good answer to it that doesn't involve society at large, in one way or another. Why is enforcing DRM in order to protect some monopoly by society at large better than community investment into the technology by society at large?
> the "other ways" that we're trying to steer manufacturers away from are not a clearly delineated set of behaviors
I think that's case with all laws and all human behaviors. That's why we have judges, to make judgements.
> they'll cripple them in hardware
I think they should try that. So far they didn't - that's why they are doing it in software, because they now can.
> two different products with different features at two different prices
Yep, and if that happens, it's bad for economy overall, that's what I argue.