hyper greed

You misspelled neoliberal capitalism

BS. Greed is a motive that has been here always. The difference is in ability. That ability lies in preventing public from organizing, crowd control. It’s been given by the Internet and computers. Because where before public would organize in their own spaces, now it’s someone else’s ground where all kinds of meddling and weird rules can exist.

What must be obscure has become apparent for those who want it.

Because of ability to process information and fulfill manipulations of worldwide scale.

That aside, the ethos of breaking rules doesn’t exist.

Some people think they can do any evil to a person who disrespects them, and surely don’t owe them what they paid for, or payment for their work, or something else. Some other people think that any obligation is lit in titanium, and whatever were the circumstances of taking it, you owe it in full, and if there’s contradiction, then the less certain obligation loses. Some people think this depends on one’s weight in society.

All these are defeated by power. The first kind - they are just miserable slaves, no honor at all, and they’ll always be manipulated to others’ goals, and will never know when to make a dignified sacrifice, but they will be sacrificed. The second kind - they think they are honorable, but of the internally contradictory net of obligations they choose those imposed by power, and ignore those countering it, and pretend to be oblivious of there being a system in their choices, they are hypocrites and the least reliable kind. The third kind - these are obedient jackals, you might get betrayed by them, but generally can safely treat them as furniture.

In some sense following rules is surrendering your own dignity and responsibility. A person responsible for themselves decides whether to follow every rule existing.

OK. Shorter - when you have a city, eventually you’ll have to demolish something old to build something new. When you have a house\apartment, eventually you’ll have to throw out some old furniture, break some walls, dispose of the garbage.

It’s similar with legal systems. Between nice good IP laws supposedly protecting creators and ability to freely communicate and exchange information, the latter is more precious. It’s our common interest to resolve the contradiction without conflict, but those people seem to think they don’t have to compromise. It doesn’t matter what they think.

Interesting.

If you click the first link under :

Q. How does copyright apply to library lending? What is the “first sale doctrine” and how does it apply to libraries? Why are the rules for lending e-books different than print books? How does copyright relate to used book sales?

www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109

You get a legal text which is almost completely unreadable to me.

But the law explicitly mentions video games:

(B) This subsection does not apply to—

(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or

(ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

© Nothing in this subsection affects any provision of chapter 9 of this title.

Do I understand the section above that? Hell no. It’s in a foreign language to me (literally and figuratively).

I feed the entire section to chatGPT and asked it about libraries and video games. It says that video games generally aren’t allowed to be lend at libraries. It’s AI so take it with a grain of salt but to be fair LLMs are pretty good at analysing large amounts of text like this. But if you can read it, I encourage you to do that instead.