[agmcleod]

I feel like taxing proprietary software, or making it illegal would be awful. Many companies big to small run businesses off of proprietary software. You have the big players like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook. Not sure how some of these compare in size, but you also have Github, Shopify, Squarespace, Reddit, Atlassian, Basecamp, robo advisor companies. Then you consider not purely based online companies like banks or retail stores that sell their products online, or give you the ability to trade ETFs. Some of those they could use open stuff instead, as they make money off of trades.

I do agree that making DRM is a losing battle, and they are transferring that cost to legitimate customers. Really though I don't have much other options for streaming. Amazon prime has the same setup, and CraveTV probably does too. Though Crave doesn't have much for content that I'm interested in.

[cyphar]

> I feel like taxing proprietary software, or making it illegal would be awful.

Maybe taxing on the distribution of proprietary software would be more palatable? After all, software that is written can only become proprietary if you distribute it to other people under a non-free license. I personally think the warranty idea is much softer on companies (while still giving some more protection for end-users).

I don't think banks should be taxed for having propreitary systems. I do have a problem with SaaS[1] companies, and companies which make money of selling software which is proprietary -- because they are actively creating a monopoly on the expertise in and ability to support their particular software (known more politely as vendor lock-in). Not to mention that proprietary software developers incredibly often mistreat their users through a variety of schemes.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

[agmcleod]

That would then also apply to games. Anything that really runs on a device.

Really I think we just need better regulation around it all. So making sure that you are allowed to hack your own device if you wish. Able to extract your data. SaaS companies being required to give you data exports (unless unsafe to do so).

[cyphar]

I'm not understanding why it matters what the software is. Modern games are already being used as a glorified way of getting more money out of their users (micro-transactions, "loot boxes", endless DLCs, multiple tiers, etc). It's not as though they'll stop making money (with "gambling simulators" and micro-transactions alone you can make hundreds of dollars out of any given user).

Taxing proprietary software distribution is a form of regulation. The ideas you propose are too piece-meal and won't actually solve the underlying problems -- namely that proprietary software is used as a tool to abuse its users. This is something that is inherent to the power dynamic between a developer and the users of proprietary software, regulation won't help.

[iamatworknow]

A big part of proprietary software, especially when it comes to enterprise software, is support. When it comes to something like a bank, If I'm doing business with them I'd much rather they pay for proprietary software that comes with some level of support than leave them to their own devices with open source software.

"But what if the bank just hires their own staff to become experts at that open source software instead?" That could work, up until they need to make specific changes to the software for their business. So they fork the open source project and create their own variation of it.

Some of the banks profits now went into paying developers for the changes in the fork. Do you think the bank's executives will just want the money they put into the fork to potentially benefit all of their competitors by having them make a pull request to the original software? Probably not...and then you end up with proprietary software again. Only in this case it's worse than the proprietary software we started with, because every bank has their own fork of the original open project.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Some of the banks profits now went into paying developers for the changes in the fork. Do you think the bank's executives will just want the money they put into the fork to potentially benefit all of their competitors by having them make a pull request to the original software?

Given that that is how they can avoid having to maintain a fork indefinitely, and that that is the fair thing to do after you profited from the gift of others who did the same: Erm, yes, they absolutely should want that, and most likely it is in their own best interest.

[iamatworknow]

I agree with you from a programmer's perspective, but a banker who has limited knowledge of how open source works may not.