Saik0Shinigami

I mean... infinity... and infinity-1 are essentially the same number.

So not at all?

Just like a certain someone who had classified documents that they weren't even supposed to have without a handler!

The shitty part of the stick... which would be the smelly part, would be firmly lodged no? The stick itself wouldn't be smelly, which would be the only part that could be vented.

If the stick is in my ass, how could I possibly be venting it? Can you at least attempt to make sense?

Imagine actually attempting to continue a conversation.

Don't actually do it. Just imagine it.

Nah, you need to read more!

... Nothing you wrote addresses any of the concerns/criticisms that I've levied in return. There's nothing additional to read and you've failed to furnish more. Talk about bad faith discussions. You're response is literally "go google it"... "go read it again", same bullshit hand-wavy nonsense.

1. You cannot have a central repository and require people to enter ALL their digital works into it. This violates a number of freedoms.
2. You cannot maintain such a repository without funding, and a fuckton of it.
3. You cannot enforce that companies must use such a repository.
4. Even if you did... stolen materials would appear outside of repository and cannot be contained regardless. and arugably having this central repo would make it easier to steal (whether just outright theft, or theft of attribution).
5. Even if you did. And a book got 100,000 downloads, how do you determine what value they get? What if the writer determines that's unreasonable?
6. How does a creative person in any form make money on this system?
7. This doesn't stop at just "creative" works right? This must include things like code and other digital works right? Oh shit, I just recorded a vlog on my phone. Gotta upload it to your magic repository!
8. How is malicious use of that central repo mitigated? Remember... you don't want a middleman taking anything.

You seem to think that you can do ANY of this without some form of DRM and copyright. Remember, you stated

we have all the tools we need to build a middle man free service

While at the same time outlining a literal middleman service as your standard. If a writer/artist/whatever wanted to self-publish. Nothing stops them. Open a website with magento, woocommerce, Prestashop... whatever you want. And sell it for whatever you think is fair. That would be the best case instance to cut out the middleman. This doesn't mean you can just strip a person of their rights to their works just because it's "free" to make duplicates of it. It's wild that you start the premise with that requirement from the get go, going down the premise proves that it wouldn't work, which was most of the point of my comments. But you seem wildly disinterested in actually discussing anything. You're nearly as bad as the people who claim communism works... but we just never saw true communism. (which is just as bad as people who claim any absolute system works... when we've never seen it work at all).

and the only way that stories and songs and ideas were passed on was through chains of people copying and retelling them.

From your original comment. There's a difference in rights to the works vs rights to the performance/recording. And further there's a difference between "personal" and "commercial" usages. The reason those stories and songs are passed down is because personal use is effectively unenforceable (and retelling in your own words would be what we call "fair use"). In your world, you'd make it also unenforceable for commercial usages as well.

It reviewed itself and found no fault. Never goes wrong, don't you know?

you’re going “YOU didn’t SAY gog WHAT an ASSHOLE”

No. My point is that when you think of YOUR perfect system. You don't actually think of one that actually more closely meets what you described. That shows the innate problem with your idea as you haven't even fully thought through it enough to even recognize what it looks like. And ultimately how it oftentimes does work for developers that wish to be more protective of their assets.

Regardless. Let me show you why even GOG doesn't work out. Forget the fact that they need to take a cut still anyway (and be the middleman) for at the minimum of costs of infrastructure.

You can't beat the cost of a torrent. Either in actual costs, or their distribution.

Given that you’re dismissively talking about a “magic system” while trying to defend against being closed minded towards it, that defense rings pretty hollow.

When you've proposed nothing that actually holds anyone accountable... You're not winning anyone over.

GOG as an example would have been better. But you didn't choose that. You chose a system that DOES have DRM and DOES act like a publisher and takes a cut. That isn't a good way to sell your "new system" when Steam does EVERYTHING the "old system" does.

Edit: And now, because you simply don't agree with me, you downvote the comments after the fact. Just because I called out how your idea doesn't work. Congrats!

Others around you don't. That consent isn't transferable. Nor does it grant wholesale recording even if the owner isn't expecting it, eg if google present "we need to record in order to do voice to text operations", then other shit gets used, that's a problem. And lastly, it doesn't transfer to other applications. If I consent to be recorded by "Google" that doesn't grant other ad partners access without explicitly stating so. EULA/TOS isn't law. Terms and conditions get abused all the time. Law often strikes them down when those terms make it to court.

There is not (yet) any law in the US that would protect people from such surveillance, regardless of its current technical infeasibility.

Wiretapping laws exist. There is no state in the US that allows for wholesale recording someone without consent. Even one party consent states still require ONE party to consent. Recordings taking in a private place without consent would fail to meet even that limited scope.