Reply to post: Re: "free games"

I got 99 secure devices but a Nintendo Switch ain't one: If you're using Nvidia's Tegra boot ROM I feel bad for you, son

Oh Homer
Headmaster

Re: "free games"

But that's exactly my point. I'm not denying that part of the transaction includes something that is merely licensed rather than sold, I'm explicitly stating that the injection of this leased component into the main article that is being sold is undermining it. It's real property with an "IP" trojan horse designed to essentially destroy it, forcing you to buy another at the manufacturer's whim (planned obsolescence).

The libertarian mentality that this is a "voluntary contract" disingenuously belies the fact that all such products have the same egregious terms, thanks to our universal "IP" regime, and thus the only "voluntary" option you have is, in essence, slavery or death, since you must either resign yourself to being bound by oppressive terms from all quarters, or not play at all. This is why I really don't believe it's an overstatement to characterise this "IP" interference in real property as a racket.

None of the typical excuses made by "IP" apologists stand up to any scrutiny. The ease with which something can be done is neither a legal nor moral argument. It's not even a sound economic argument, given that multiple vendors happily coexist selling functionally identical physical products in every other market, including real estate.

I'm merely pointing out that the current "IP" regime is an assault on consumer rights, that it hypocritically defends its own fake "property" rights (as in "property" which is purely ethereal, largely plagiarised, and consequently to which their title under the law has been mandated to expire after a given term, clearly defining it as a privileged issued purely for pragmatic reasons, unlike inalienable real property rights), whilst simultaneously riding roughshod over everyone else's real property rights.

Sorry, but I really don't believe that complaining about such a blatant racket qualifies as fanaticism.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019