BTW, Adobe is American. Reconsider those licenses for other options.
DaVinci Resolve for video editing would be perfect (and it’s free). Unfortunately Photoshop and Illustrator aren’t as easy to replace (though photopea is amazing as a free replacement for photoshop without AI garbage).
I really like the idea of opting out of IP agreements, but it’s unclear how effective it would be. AFAIU jail breaks are illegal in the US thanks to the DMCA - if Canada produces the kits, it’s still a risk to American farmers/Tesla owners to use them.
And:
But you know what Canada could make? A Canadian App Store. That’s a store that Canadian software authors could use to sell Canadian apps to Canadian customers, charging, say, the standard payment processing fee of 5% rather than Apple’s 30%. Canada could make app stores for the Android, Playstation and Xbox, too.
This requires cooperation from the platforms we’re attacking. The EU had the clout to force Apple to open their platform, but would Canada? Would a bellicose US allow one of their most profitable and iconic companies to do that? Given a choice, I suspect Apple would happily make the “alternate app store” experience so user unfriendly that most users would avoid it.
Android has allowed side loading forever, and has a bunch of non-Google app stores, but they have only gained traction in limited circles.
It’s a fun idea, and it’d be interesting to see how it works out, but I’m not sure it would have a significant impact.
I think you misunderstand: Canada just makes jailbreaking legal. We allow the jailbreakers to distribute their hacks and even sell them.
This isn’t crazy: even if it’s just for John Deer farm equipment it’s a huge boon to consumers.
Sure, Apple and Google will try to make this impossible, but there is a reason they want legal recourse as well as technological.
We allow the jailbreakers to distribute their hacks and even sell them.
I understand that. The target market for those jailbreaks is outside Canada, so distribution of our product would be limited by foreign laws. Foreign buyers would be dissuaded by stuff like the DMCA.
It works for Canadians, but it wouldn’t really affect anyone outside Canada. Given the size of our market, it would have a minimal effect on the sellers of locked products.
even if it’s just for John Deer farm equipment it’s a huge boon to consumers.
Canadian farmers who aren’t part of supply management schemes are in rough shape. As much as it might help them, they aren’t a large market, and (if John Deer cares) the sellers will probably use other monopolistic practices to discourage it.
Sure, Apple and Google will try to make this impossible…
Android app builders regularly complain that their apps are heavily pirated by alternate app stores in China. As far as I can tell, that hasn’t really changed Google policy. If Google is willing to ignore an app market the size of China, I don’t think there will be any real effect from Canada doing the same.
I like the idea behind the proposal, but unless it hurts US corporations, it seems like a small tweak to help Canadian consumers, rather than meaningful retaliation in a trade war.
Apple would probably setup a subsidiary company, let’s call it Apple Canada, to operate the official app store for Canadian users. They would then funnel that money around the world to get it back to the parent company with little/no tax paid.
And I’m sure Drumpf would be 100% okay with that plan, and wouldn’t retaliate against Apple.
deleted by creator
Can we stop sharing this guy’s every word like he’s an authority on everything? He’s a blogger, not an expert on international relations.
Activist, prolific novelist, EFF organizer and analyst, and then some. Lived and worked in both countries and deeply involved in digital rights and intellectual property policy. Probably worth paying attention on this particular issue.
Also, major exaggeration on the ‘every word’ whinge. He’s prolific and targeting the fediverse.
A blogger and…
Dude has had some fairly prophetic understandings of how thing are headed for years, so he does have some background on a potentially valid pov.
Ah yes, he’s the “Internet prophet”. That gives him credibility.
No, but it gives him a reason to be read and considered. Taking anyone’s ideas just because they said them is… problematic to say the least.
I am just trying to give you a bit more context than you seem willing to find, and, as everyone who has responded in this thread seems to note, you are writing responses that seem bizarrely … aggressive?
I mean, I’m not wed to the idea, nor am I to all the man’s writings, but you seem extremely set against him with no explanation.
First, he’s not alone. There was a globe and mail editorial that also boosted this idea, with an emphasis on drug and AI patents.
Second, he doesn’t claim expertise in trade relations; he’s an expert on the recent history of IP and reasonable claim in that.
But frankly, what expertise in international relations is appropriate? Trump is blowing shit up, and does not act like a rational actor. Can you name someone who IS an expert on how to handle this?
The only new thing about this is that it’s coming from the US. Irrational governments have and do exist in the real world and people have been dealing with them for centuries. Maybe look to them for answers instead of the random internet celebrity that has zero experience in the matter.
Could you engage with the content instead of being upset that a person is prolific? I personally have enjoyed everything I’ve read from this person. I’m not claiming they’re an expert, I’m claiming I like their perspective even if I don’t always agree with it. That’s exactly the kind of material I want to see on Lemmy.
The content is meaningless because he isn’t qualified. Valuing enjoyment and entertainment over information from people actually well versed in the given field is exactly how you get what’s happening in the US right now. It’s an appeal to emotion rather than logic - ironically something I expect Cory would claim to be against.
That’s a bad argument and frankly a shit take. An artist doesn’t have to be have a formal degree to make food art, a journalist doesn’t have to have a formal degree to do good investigative work, and no one needs to go to culinary school to post a good recipe they made. Your argument doesn’t make sense on face value in numerous situations.
Qualification is primary source material is valuable. I want to know the doctors who run clinical trials are qualified, registered, and in good standing. I want that data published from a reputable source but not necessarily a qualified one. And I want people who are good at explaining data, with a rational perspective, to explain that data in every medium they can. Distributing, digesting, repackaging, and resynthesizing facts do not require qualification and can still provide benefit.
Doubly so when conversing about a topic, writing philosophy, or debating a political stance. I don’t need every 9-5 worker to be qualified in a subject matter when talking to them about it, I just need them to be rational. Starting that conversation and formulating opinions is what I enjoy about Cory’s work. I do not need a PhD or a government official to do that. If someone has thoughts worth considering, if they communicate them in an agreeable manner, and if they do so in a public space correct for that conversation then they provide value regardless of their qualifications.
I think your deduction as to why we’re in the shape we’re in in the US is poorly formed. People didn’t just wake up one day and decide to get their news from the clown network and then they voted in a clown. People who wanted more power and control deregulated industries, moved money out of communities, worsened public education, monopolized the media, monopolized industry, and stoked fear until people wanted any change and promise of safety regardless of who gave it.
I think what you’re doing now, trying to silence positive educated voices on the Internet, enables those bad people to continue their evil work. Because it cost other people like myself time to respond to this bad opinion that could have done harm if supported by enough people. Gatekeepers and authority are not the deciders of what is valuable and what isn’t.
I think your deduction as to why we’re in the shape we’re in in the US is poorly formed. People didn’t just wake up one day and decide to get their news from the clown network and then they voted in a clown. People who wanted more power and control deregulated industries, moved money out of communities, worsened public education, monopolized the media, monopolized industry, and stoked fear until people wanted any change and promise of safety regardless of who gave it.
I figured I’d summarize to the more immediate issue instead of writing a treatise on the last 70 years of US society. Sorry, I guess?
As for the topic at hand, my point is that Cory isn’t a “positive educated voice” in this matter. He’s shoehorning his special interest that he’s questionably qualified at into a topic that is entirely separate. And the only reason he has a platform is because he appeals to Internet denizens with his stoking of righteous anger at corporations. That’s far from a good baseline to start with when the stakes are that much higher than a blog article.
Ultimately, my “bad opinion” that you think is so harmful is that people should listen to voices with experience on the matter. I gather from your reply that you have gripes with authority figures, but I promise you that letting pop figures dictate the discussion isn’t going to solve anything.
First time on the Internet? Surely you don’t think that all the people commenting online are experts in the topic being discussed. Whether he is an expert or not, just because you don’t like him, you tell other people not to post his articles. Personally, the only thing I know about the guy is he coined the term “enshittification”, which some people don’t like, but he was right in his description of the term. Otherwise, we’d all be using Reddit still.
It’s the Internet. People are going to do or say thing other people don’t like. Don’t take it personally.
I’m not “taking it personally”. And he’s not just someone “commenting online” - he’s advocating for the Canadian government to take specific action based on his unqualified opinion, and I’m saying it shouldn’t be given a platform just because he has name recognition. It’s not unreasonable to call that out, and acting like I’m being hysterical just to discredit me is shitty.
Dude has worked at the EFF for a long time and is a published author. How is he not qualified to speak on copyright and IP?
If a hammer suggests using a nail to cook your sandwich, do you think maybe he has a point because he knows nails, or do you consider that maybe he just knows nothing about cooking?
Also, anyone can get “published”. It means nothing.
Wasn’t it just established that qualifications do not matter at all?
Because that’s what we should be accepting now? Really?
