Melkor

Gross

Ultimately I'd prefer he didn't, as it's reinforcing the race to the bottom you refer to above. Yes google caused it, yes we choose to participate. I am also a developer and pushed out apps without ad support in business contexts, admittedly niche, but basically a single person should not be able to monetize at this level and for just their own gain. We lose a lot compared to any short term benefit. Yes I'm talking ideals, I want people to focus more on ideals generally and less on growth and monetization.

People still sell software the traditional way, especially B2B. I don't like your argument because it assumes someone needs to be paid, community efforts benefit the community and there are plenty of people who just want to make use of their technology on their own terms. They can put ads in this that's their choice, but even adfree if tracking is bundled in it can't be said to be ethical. The community excitement does baffle me a bit, respectfully.

Respectfully I think a point that is often missed with your mindset is how your capital is giving you your voting power. Market Socialist policy aims to even out that exact voting power and more labor focused socialism does the same without market forces. The issue is the hoard and the power that hoard is giving individuals (and firms) over us.

I'm in a similar position to you and I can see many of these policies would hurt me directly, but can also see the historical patterns and current material conditions. We need to build a future for everyone, everyone who agrees with that is a socialist if you argue with them long enough

Expert systems are a series of if statements by definition, a rule engine. I was going off of "a network of ifs" but I get what you mean.

In computer science (at least before hype took over) this is actually a type of machine learning called an expert system.

Thanks for the well thought out response, I believe your dragon may belong to someone else and it may rightfully be theirs, someday. I get what you're saying in terms of practical day to day, but there is a harmful nature to copyright which is not discussed and I think that's more important to come to terms with morally vs any harm caused by piracy. I also believe the harm piracy does cause can be mitigated with a more aware system. Once something is created you are in a power struggle to own it that you will lose with absolute certainly if the thing is not destroyed after your time with it.

The entitlement comes from it existing, once you put something out there it belongs to the public forever. Laws around this are designed to create incentive but it does far more to lock out folks who could benefit/enjoy it but otherwise would never experience it. I don't think you have a right to have the Mona Lisa in your house but you have a right to see reproductions forever and I want that for digital art too.

A person vs art, that's the line where our opinion would differ I guess. Art/media is part of the world/history and it feels wrong to lock out large parts of it essentially forever. Let us pay for things and have them, it's that simple. Once it cannot be sold it should be publically available if someone who has it wants to make it so. But again this all crosses into opinion, you can't own a person and be a good citizen at the same time but many pirates are productive members of society or couldn't buy to begin with.

There is no "eventually" regarding climate, the time for civility was decades ago and we're out of time. Remember oil companies have their own research divisions and knew all of this before the public, it is a crime against humanity and the public has to hold them accountable somehow.

That's kind of their point, because we are not in fact buying the media the argument is that piracy has some moral element. Put another way there is no option to own it outside of piracy.