>Why shouldn't everyone deserve access to the best tools, and by extension, best things? (Taking the production costs into account.) Best tools save time and make everybody more productive, which should be in everybody's interest.
I agree with this in principle.
>Imagine you would say something like that in education - that some children do not deserve the best education, simply because they may never use it. How do you know they will not find some use for it?
Sure, but the other side of this is that the guy who wrote the education curriculum ought to be paid, in order to encourage the development of further artistic works.
Absent some kind of taxpayer-funded way of compensating artists, how are they supposed to get a reasonable amount of money without denying non-payers access to their works?
>Also, the argument "if they didn't do it this way, they'd do it some other way" is interesting. In this nebulous form, it's often used to justify something morally fishy. Note that you can also use it other way around: Why should there be laws to protect DRM, if people who want to break will find some other way? The correct answer is, of course, the laws and regulations (legal system) are the correct resolution of this argument - we have them to steer people away from "other ways".
I agree that it's often used to justify something morally questionable. However, there's a distinction here, because the "other ways" that we're trying to steer manufacturers away from are not a clearly delineated set of behaviors. If you prevent people from crippling their products in software, they'll cripple them in hardware. If you prevent people from crippling their products in hardware, they'll make two different products with different features at two different prices, and costs will be higher all around. If you prevent someone from selling a less-featured version of another of their own products, they'll just make one of the two products, and some competitor will make the other.
That's the argument for not preventing manufacturers from crippling their products in software.
> the guy who wrote the education curriculum ought to be paid
He absolutely should be!
> how are they supposed to get a reasonable amount of money without denying non-payers access to their works
Good question! But I don't think there is a good answer to it that doesn't involve society at large, in one way or another. Why is enforcing DRM in order to protect some monopoly by society at large better than community investment into the technology by society at large?
> the "other ways" that we're trying to steer manufacturers away from are not a clearly delineated set of behaviors
I think that's case with all laws and all human behaviors. That's why we have judges, to make judgements.
> they'll cripple them in hardware
I think they should try that. So far they didn't - that's why they are doing it in software, because they now can.
> two different products with different features at two different prices
Yep, and if that happens, it's bad for economy overall, that's what I argue.
> I think they should try that. So far they didn't - that's why they are doing it in software, because they now can.
I heard it's common in computer parts manufacturing - they just add an additional production step where a laser cuts through some traces on the PCB to disconnect the part they don't want you to use in the cheaper model. Apparently customers got too good at reversing the softer methods of market segmentation.
Yes, you're right, it was the case in Intel 486 SX/DX.
All I am saying here that this is of course a waste of resources, even though I don't know how to prevent this sort of waste in our society.
(IMHO, bigger problem is for example throwing out foods by restaurants and supermarkets, which is also OK by doctrine of economic liberalism, yet wasteful.)
I agree with this in principle.
>Imagine you would say something like that in education - that some children do not deserve the best education, simply because they may never use it. How do you know they will not find some use for it?
Sure, but the other side of this is that the guy who wrote the education curriculum ought to be paid, in order to encourage the development of further artistic works.
Absent some kind of taxpayer-funded way of compensating artists, how are they supposed to get a reasonable amount of money without denying non-payers access to their works?
>Also, the argument "if they didn't do it this way, they'd do it some other way" is interesting. In this nebulous form, it's often used to justify something morally fishy. Note that you can also use it other way around: Why should there be laws to protect DRM, if people who want to break will find some other way? The correct answer is, of course, the laws and regulations (legal system) are the correct resolution of this argument - we have them to steer people away from "other ways".
I agree that it's often used to justify something morally questionable. However, there's a distinction here, because the "other ways" that we're trying to steer manufacturers away from are not a clearly delineated set of behaviors. If you prevent people from crippling their products in software, they'll cripple them in hardware. If you prevent people from crippling their products in hardware, they'll make two different products with different features at two different prices, and costs will be higher all around. If you prevent someone from selling a less-featured version of another of their own products, they'll just make one of the two products, and some competitor will make the other.
That's the argument for not preventing manufacturers from crippling their products in software.