Copyright is backed up by courts, which are protected by men with guns. And if you have an idea, you don't have to patent it. And if you have a patent, you don't have to protect it (making it public domain like status). We don't have to have patents, that is also a choice.

Corporations have a lot in common with Patents, protecting property rights with public charters defended by the state (people with guns). We don't have to have those either. I'd be okay with taking government out of the Corporation business, and start holding corporate boards accountable for the corporation itself.

Don't mind that you contradicted yourself here in ways you probably don't realize.

"There ought to be a law" isn't a double sided sword, but you're wielding it that way. Why do we have to figure out anything? Do you want to protect Nintendo (and all the corporations you derided in your post) or do you want liberty to use your "hobbyist PCS" as you see fit?

Freedom is scary. People will do shit you (and me) won't like.

Here is my take as a Libertarian. Copyrights and Patents ought to be taxed by the holders of those protected classes. Choosing to not pay those taxes liberates those patents and copyrights to the public domain. How this works in Nintendo's case here is ... I doubt they'd be spending millions protecting old titles in perpetuity and they'd be released to the Public. Copyrights and Patents ARE a creation of the state, protected by laws of the state, enforced by the power of the state and ought to be paid for by those it protects. These taxes could pay for a great deal, and once they no longer benefit the holders, become public and benefit everyone everywhere equally. This is the one kind of tax that I can get on board with, because it is 100% voluntary and doesn't force anyone to do anything.

In this case here, what I run on my PC is my business. The tools for allowing me to run Nintendo's "Property" aren't Nintendo's, and they have no control over my stuff at all.

Mr. Universe, a technophile and information broker who broadcasts uncensored truths across the system, telling Captain Malcolm Reynolds: "Can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere." - Mister Universe

(see also, Streisand Effect)

In an attempt to add context to what appears to be an inflammatory comment, here's some background:

Some time ago the US Department of Defense asked Musk to turn off starlink access in the Crimean peninsula. Although officially a Ukranian territory and not recognized as part of Russia, it made sense to do this due to the Russian occupation. Some Ukranian drones stopped working, and Musk steadfastly refused to allow his civilian system to be used to kill people.

Due to fallout from that incident, starlink satellite access was divided into two parts: Starlink and Starshield, both using Musk's satellites.

The explicit intent behind Starshield was to separate civilian and military uses of the satellite constellation. Under this framework:

"Starlink" is the regular user system, and it's TOS require that it not be used for military purposes. Basically, it's an ISP saying that you cannot use their system to kill people. Elon Musk is responsible for overseeing how Starlink is run and managed.

"Starshield" is the military version, and this is OK to use this as a weapon. The US Department of War (used to be "defense") controls who uses this and how it is used, they allow Ukraine to use it for battle, and they disallow Russia to use it for any purpose.

It was noticed that the Russians were stealing starlink endpoints and using them to attack Ukraine, so a "fast moving" detection was implemented to put a stop to this. As a byproduct, some Ukraine drones stopped working as well.

The Ukranians have access to starshield, the military version, and should have been using this instead of starlink.

Yes, he made the civilian version of starlink not work for drones, but this same change protected Ukraine from Russian drones using starlink.

Some people like to find reasons to criticize Musk.

I can't either.

Which is why the parent wants an unbiased source, and I'm with him.

News has become an unregulated sewer of rage bait propaganda.

Well, I should say.

Now friend, let me tell you what I mean...

So, Three companies good, four is anti-competitive? When T-Mobile bought Sprint, where you for or against that merger?

Just wanting the logic here.

People work after sunset and before sunrise all over the place. Some places are open 24/7. And yet, people manage it just fine. And some places are dark for large portions of the year, and bright for large portions of the year. It's almost like the world is a sphere or something and no two places are the same! Some places are summer at the same time other places have winter. Weird huh?

UTC everywhere, all the time and just be done with Timezones and DST forever!

AI Scenario

User to AI: Is this mushroom safe to eat
AI to User: Yes it is!

RIP User

AI to nobody: Oops, sorry. This was not safe to eat. Here is a list of how to identify poisonous mushrooms.

I'm sure that someone is running an AI agent on Office right now. Word and Excel are the real enemies of switching.

Simply stating: We Do Not Accept DOCx or XLSx formats, forces compliance. Since MS can produce ODF (allegedly), that's how you get compliance.

Excel isn't done until the macros won't run (on anything else).

My father in law used to do design work in Excel. No kidding. He claimed Publisher et al didn't give him the precision he wanted, or something like that. It was amazing what he could put together in Excel.

Why would I do that? Shouldn't there be at least minimal Government oversight?

Oh wait, now I get it, this is "racist" or something. We can't have oversight that would leave businesses without the under the table wages Americans won't work for.

Because one thing is exactly the same as the completely unrelated thing, except topically. That's why.