The locking down is what allows people to protect the execution of their ideas. (For what it's worth, I actually would prefer secrets to the "openness" of the patent system.)
I'm not in favor of hardware lockdowns or DRM, but I don't like knee-jerk reactions to anything. There is a tension between a consumer's freedom to learn your secret recipe, and a creator's freedom to keep their recipe secret to financially enable them to produce in the first place; I don't think any answer to that tension is axiomatic or obvious.
There is a tension between a consumer's freedom to learn your secret recipe, and a creator's freedom to keep their recipe secret to financially enable them to produce in the first place; I don't think any answer to that tension is axiomatic or obvious.
I actually think it is. In the online world, lockdowns are driven more by "greed" than "need". For example, in the OP I am not sure why an owned piece of hardware should be allowed to be controlled by the product manufacturer. It has a price and it is sold to me; I am free to do anything what I want to with my iPhone.
But what if we were talking about software? If the creator of Braid or Minecraft wants to keep the source closed in order to get paid for their time, it may not be noble, but it is at least understandable.
So what's different between closed-source software, and Amazon encrypting Kindle firmware in order to sell each unit at a loss? Should we also force Gillette razors to be compatible with all blades? Where does the line get drawn, and on what basis?
Note: I'm not defending anti-circumvention laws. No one should ever see a courtroom due to exploration and curiosity. I am simply arguing that it might be beneficial, in some cases, to allow creators to keep secrets (or at least, to try).
But, in this case are we talking about software? We are actually not.
Lets assume we are talking about software - it still makes sense to me. For example, if Microsoft sells MS Word to me I am free to make custom modifications for myself. Of course, making modifications and reselling it is unethical but the lines are pretty clear - you've got to make the user have more control over the product he pays for. Otherwise, you are just violating fundamentals of living.
> Otherwise, you are just violating fundamentals of living.
[citation needed] :)
If a user voluntarily chooses to buy a closed product, what's the harm? Freedom includes the right to make self-detrimental decisions.
Also, I don't see an obvious way to allow users to change your code without allowing competitors to steal your work, whether directly or indirectly. (And don't say patents, because those are far worse for innovation.) While there do exist successful business models for FOSS, they don't necessarily work well for every market need.
All I'm saying is, there are many ways to skin the macro-economic cat. There is not a default state of nature to revert to; there are only the cultural norms which we choose to establish.
What I mean is that a product manufacturer sells something to me and that's it. I should have complete control over it. Just like a fruit vendor can't decide on how I should eat it similarly a product manufacturer can't decide on how I want to consume a product. I am just customizing a product for me and not competing with the product manufacturer. So, I do not see anything wrong in it.
> Also, I don't see an obvious way to allow users to change your code without allowing competitors to steal your work, whether directly or indirectly.
That's a fair point but let me assert here that the onus is on the product manufacturers to do this without violating basic principles of purchasing goods. Any good once purchased is in the hands of the purchaser and he/she may choose to customize to good as per his/her needs. Of course, the purchaser should not be allowed to compete by putting up a layer on the existing platform which should be illegal or unethical. However, if he is not doing so no entity should allow to control how he wants to use it.
> If a user voluntarily chooses to buy a closed product, what's the harm? Freedom includes the right to make self-detrimental decisions.
:-) This is not an appropriate assertion. We are discussing whether a closed product should be allowed in the first place. I do not think we have come up to a conclusion as yet.
You're not defending anti-circumvention laws? Then you shouldn't have said 'devil's advocate' in reply to a comment only talking about consumer actions.
I don't really agree with most of what I've been saying; my point was that there is a legitimate argument to be made on the opposing side, and that there is nothing fundamentally different between locking down hardware and locking down software.
