gozo

"Did they implement defenses against common web vulnerabilities like SQL injection?"

Prepared statements has been available with PDO since 2005. It might very well have had bugs, but that isn't uncommon.

I agree though I would add that much of this is because android "won" linux on embedded. Today it (unfortunately IMO) seems far more likely that a hobby ecosystem is going to trickle down from android than the other way around.

It's called a "dark pattern" these days. JustFab is a prominent example and has been discussed on HN.

While I don't agree with all their decisions I think it safe to say that the only reason stack exchange has really good answers to overly moderate in the first place is because they don't allow subjective discussions. If they did, the knowledgeable people would quickly leave since their answers couldn't and wouldn't be correctly valued by those with less knowledge.

"Guess what, you start shit, people react, you make enemies."

Since you are now essentially making threats I can no longer in good faith continue this discussion.

"You called me ignorant directly and you started it"

I didn't call you ignorant, so much as your argument that involved currency and north korea. But I realize it's a fine line and should have used a different word. Not that you are taking the high road here either.

"The topic was a sarcastic example about piracy and theft in terms of supply, demand and value. It was not at all about copyright law."

How is piracy and "theft" not about copyright law? If you're not breaking copyright law it's not piracy.

"Possibly based on discourse but not based on reality and therefore off topic"

I obviously don't think so. My kind of arguments are the ones being discussed at conferences, in books, documentaries and papers.

"What dream world do you live in where you think this is all that happens with piracy? Many people also copy things that they would have bought in the first place."

There's a reason I used the word "theoretically". Still a 14 year old is seldom going to buy a $4000 program and companies sometimes recognizes these scenarios. Microsoft did in China for instance.

"Who cares? Increasing supply is a part of reality, and that is what I'm talking about."

I don't see how increasing supply in general is relevant. If I seed some flowers I'm increasing the supply of flowers, but few people would see that as a negative thing. If there were no copyright, like in (to some extent) fashion or cooking, copying would be part of reality and there would be little point to compare it to copying currency.

A fashion designer can't design a collection and enjoy exclusivity. A couple of months (if not weeks) later the fast-fashion store are going to have copies. They can't dictate the terms of a sale anymore than a musician that gets copied can.

So the fashion industry have worked out their own added value in forms of heritage, luxury and exclusivity. Just like people who sell open source add value with trust, support and consulting. And people who sell games add value with multiplayer, statistics and achievements.

Less copyright means more labor not less. More performances, more innovation, more consulting. If that's a good thing and when it's not is of course a discussion in itself.

Chefs are compensated for their time (unless maybe you're the head chef), but they are also not compensated for their intellectual property, which is the point. Maybe a better example is copying a dress (if you imagine outsourced manufacturing).

"How exactly is a software developer/musician/artist supposed to be compensated for their time/labor without copyright and the ability to determine the terms of the sale?"

There are plenty of creative people who sell their time, just like chefs. Of course plenty of companies today don't even sell software, but essentially services.

"There is significant up-front time and expense involved with any type of creative work"

Yes, but this is to some extent a different issue than copyright itself. I'm not even arguing for the removal of copyright (I'm personally for stronger authors rights with drastic reduction in terms), just that copyright is mainly rights to artistic, rather than utilitarian or scientific, things i.e. doesn't have a whole lot to do with labor.

This should be even more apparent today with cloud distribution, where software can't be resold.

You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright instead your trying to shoehorn in your argument where they don't make sense.

"You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply"

A digital product already has infinite supply. The question isn't if copying affects supply, but if it affects demand. If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim. The same is true in other fields. Even universal human rights doesn't deal with intellectual property in this way. There's simply little basis for this view.

"When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music"

That you "only harm the creator" is objectively false, since even if you prescribe to great harm being done by piracy it's not only the creator, but the rightsholder that gets hurt.

"What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime?"

It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling.

"Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality"

My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse.

"Sales of digital goods, like any other sale, are about me trading a portion of my time/labor for someone else's time/labor."

No it's not. If anything, that is a ridiculous opinion. It has no basis is society, law or discourse. There's little relation between labor and copyright. A more apt analogy is something like land rights. But that is still not talking about the real issue. Chefs puts significant amount of labor into their creations, they are not covered by copyright.

"Right now only the united states is allowed to copy dollar bills"

Usually anyone can copy currency as long as you clearly indicate that it is a copy.

"The united states government needs to get with the times. Digital distribution is the wave of the future. Why should the united states be the sole entity allowed to print dollar bills?"

Not a unreasonable question if you equate "print dollar bills" with issuing currency, which is what they actually do.

"If the world was more like North Korea, the world would be a better place"

Is it really that much fun to make these sarcastic ignorant comparisons rather than discuss the real issues and maybe learn something?

"In no other areas of our economies do we allow such nonsense to go on"

Except food, fashion, boats, building etc. You can copy essentially any piece of clothing while " stealing the up-front investment of the producer".

Not really relevant since bills are protected as a result of laws regarding forgery and fraud, not copyright. It's a lazy rebuttal without foundation in discourse or law.