« prev   random   next »

4
0

Felony Contempt of Business-Model

By Patrick following x   2019 Jan 9, 8:55am 333 views   2 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


http://locusmag.com/2019/01/cory-doctorow-disruption-for-thee-but-not-for-me/

The metastasis of terms of service into sprawling novellas of impenetrable legalese has created a world where anything you do to frustrate the commercial ambitions of digital monopolists is a potential criminal offense. ...

Together, the CFAA and DMCA have given digital businesses access to a shadowy legal doctrine that was never written by Congress but is nevertheless routinely enforced by the courts: Felony Contempt of Business-Model. ...

Uber and Lyft can use DMCA 1201 to stop you from figuring out how to use them to locate co-op drivers, and they can use the CFAA to stop you from flipping your booking from Uber to Meta-Uber.

There are a hundred other Metas we can imagine: a Meta-Amazon that places your order with the nearest indy bookstore instead; a Meta-OpenTable that redirects your booking to a co-op booking tool.

Every single one of these co-ops would disrupt a digital monopolist who came to power preaching the gospel of disruption. Every single one of those digital monopolists would switch to the aggrieved bleats of a bewildered incumbent apex predator snarling and twisted impotently as its flesh was rent by a thousand tiny bites from swarms of fast-moving, highly evolved successors.

But we never get to bring those lumbering relics down, not so long as felony contempt-of-business-model is still in play in America. Until then, disruption will always be for thee and never for me.


I'm of the opinion that terms of service should not be considered enforceable at all. They are not true contracts, simply anti-competitive tactics designed to extract more revenue from the public without providing any additional benefit.
1   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2019 Jan 9, 1:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I think this stems from copyright law, which completely misconstrues property rights as they were intended in the Federalist Papers. I agree with rights when it comes to someone's physical property, but it gets really murky when you start trying to enforce the same rights for ideas and copies of a work that you willingly sell/distribute, allowing others to own it.
2   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 9, 1:30pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Agreed. I also don't like how Ownership has been becoming Renting/Leasing by stealth.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions