[roxolotl]

> But this is technology, in my opinion, has the risk of eventually triggering a form of social stratification. The focus should be on keeping the technology ubiquitous, accessible, and unrestricted.

But this is exactly what proposals like you’re responding to are trying to do. Ignoring the morality this is an economic issue. Massive economic value is potentially going to be created by stealing from individuals. Why can’t they get small kickbacks? Why must their contribution be completely devoid of remuneration for us to stand a chance of “winning a war” or keeping this technology accessible?

[EdwardKrayer]

You're right. If there are methods to get creators paid, while ensuring unfettered access to all - it absolutely should happen. The legal system in America doesn't have a good track record of nuance, especially when nuance is necessary. My views come from the idea that the American legal system will either smite them into bankruptcy, or it will give them the precedent they need to exempt past violations, and carry on as usual.

Nuance is needed, and I hope that they find it.

[slowtrek]

Nuance is needed

So much so that your first reply froze me and made me think. This is not easy, it's absolutely in our nature to gate keep knowledge.

[EdwardKrayer]

These comments made me realize my viewpoints surrounding this issue are heavily based on the American legal system being very binary, with the majority of tech companies going all or nothing. Appeal your way up to the supreme court, and pray for the all.

In this case, it feels like the two most likely outcomes both hurt us.

[raxxorraxor]

It isn't in our nature at all, on the contrary. It is if that knowledge is useful for strategic purpose like economic advantages, but it is an exception.