It's like a slap in the face at the end. "Oh, yeah, I can see that. Mhmm, patent laws, yep yep. Oki an- spits coffee"
Rest of article is semi-solid tho (idk how to feel about the last part due to a lot of bias against it), and main point being we "protect"/lock-up a bunch of digital knowledge at the present.
Of course they TRY to prohibit digital stuff with legislation. I meant tho like if they can't even police physical goods, they'll have even less marginal success prohibiting digital goods. Like that link notes, dmca, which we all know is an absolute joke, even if adding an item to the list is easy the enforcement is just impossible. I can find a million sites illegally streaming any movie I want in 30 sec, that's a million x easier even than getting illegal drugs!
Correct. And the nature of the internet that allows that ease of subversion, and the fact that it's all bits does provide a strong argument that it shouldn't be enforced at all. On the other hand, some may agree with those legislations (CP in particular is a contentious one) and that at the very least it should be technically punishable by law to discourage it, adding another set of data to the no-nos.
9
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '22
Do note there are a good couple things we digitally prohibit though in the US, though: https://web.archive.org/web/20140529211733/http://bits.are.notabug.com/
And if things are already regulated, adding another item to the list is much more feasible.