[matheusmoreira]

> How much "reverse engineering" these days really is clean room and how much of it is just ripping off proprietary software?

I did mine clean room. When I reverse engineered my laptop's features, I intercepted the proprietary software's communications with the hardware, compiled my findings into a whole bunch of notes and then wrote my own free software to do the same thing based on those notes.

> But when the Nintendo copyright czar wakes up, they're the bad guys...

They are always the bad guys. Copyright owners are monopolists. Copyright as a whole should be abolished. I don't care what the so called "pirates" are doing, they are always less morally wrong than eternal copyright monopolists who rob us of our public domain rights and turn perfectly good computers into locked down digital fiefdoms where we are serfs.

20 year old games you grew up with? Give me a break. These companies have all made their fortunes multiple times over. This "intellectual property" should already be in the public domain by all reasonable accounts. God forbid Nintendo be unable to sell you the exact same Mario ROM for the 10th time though. We're all going to be long dead before our culture returns to us. That means it effectively never will.

[armada651]

> Copyright as a whole should be abolished.

Why is abolishment always the first reaction to any system with flaws? There are multi-billion dollar companies who would love to see copyright abolished, especially right now so that they can profit from artists with reckless abandon without giving them so much as a penny.

Copyright provides an incentive for artists to dedicate their life to their creative endeavors by providing a means to make a living off their art and I would like that to continue to be the case. It needs to be reformed, not abolished.

[matheusmoreira]

> Why is abolishment always the first reaction to any system with flaws?

Because we're sick of it. We're tired of pretending this stuff is artificially scarce while they rob us of our rights. The reality is intellectual property is fiction and public domain is its natural state. We'd like to start living in reality.

Nearly two hundred years ago, one man warned everyone this would happen.

https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr...

> once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions.

> The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create.

> in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

Not only did nobody listen, people doubled down on this bullshit. These are the consequences.

> Copyright provides an incentive for artists to dedicate their life to their creative endeavors

False. It is absolute rent seeking.

The original social contract was we'd all pretend for a few years that intellectual works couldn't be trivially copied so that creators could turn a profit. And then, and this part is the key, and then the works would enter the public domain.

When was the last time some work you enjoyed entered the public domain? It's not happening. They keep postponing it. You'll be dead before your culture enters the public domain. They've all made a zillion dollars off of it already but they think it's not enough.

Artists? They defend this stuff. They deserve the consequences. They are monopolists, just like the corporations you are decrying. On this very site I've run into artists who think it's absolutely just that they and their families get to enjoy centuries of rent from the government granted monopolies on their creations.

[armada651]

> The original social contract was we'd all pretend for a few years that intellectual works couldn't be trivially copied so that creators could turn a profit. And then, and this part is the key, and then the works would enter the public domain.

I agree and we should go back to that system, but that was still copyright. If you're calling for abolishment you give artists 0 years to turn a profit.

[matheusmoreira]

Sounds good. Let them have zero years. Let them have negative years. Let AI be trained on their works, then leak the models so that it cannot ever be controlled or undone. There is no compromising with monopolists. We gave them a generous social contract and all what we got back was abuse and greed and rent seeking and moved goalposts. You're telling me this time it will be different? Yeah, right. I say abolish copyright straight up.

The address I cited contains the most reasonable defense of copyright ever argued: the only alternative is patronage. Artists can get paid before they work via patrons and sponsors, or they can get paid after they work via selling artificially scarce copies. Macaulay argues patronage is poison for the integrity of art because nobles only fund self-aggrandizing works.

He's not wrong but it's 2025 and technology has already solved that problem. We have patronage and crowdfunding services that allow people to raise money from the public at large. His argument no longer holds. An alternative to copyright exists. I say let artists create their patreons and their kickstarters so that they can get paid before they labor over their creations, and let things enter the public domain the very second they are published.