[knorker]

> To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom.

It's also trivial to stab someone. Not all crimes can or should be prevented by technical means.

In fact most cannot even in principle be prevented. Most of law depends on detection, not prevention.

[type0]

> Most of law depends on detection, not prevention.

That's where the "there must be no software freedom" is exactly what might be mandated. It's trivial to re-purpose Apple CSAM mechanism to do this "detection" and something that might actually happen in the future.

[matheusmoreira]

Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that.

[knorker]

You should read up on the history of copyright.

[matheusmoreira]

I have. To infringe copyright at scale in the old world, you needed industrial hardware like printing presses. Centralized operations of significant size. Easy target for litigation.

Now nearly everyone on this planet has a pocket computer capable of creating and transmitting unlimited numbers of any piece of data at practically zero cost. People don't even realize they're doing it, it's so natural. They create truckloads of derivative works of copyrighted material every single day in the form of memes.

[knorker]

Ok, so littering should be legal, too?

Running a red light? And yellow light?

[matheusmoreira]

No?

[knorker]

So... ?

It's easy to litter, and by FAR most people get away with it.

It's easy to infringe copyright, and by FAR most people get away with it.

Yet you feel this is justification to remove copyright laws, but not littering laws.