Self-sovereign identity could make this possible.

That's because smart contracts aren't contracts at all. Ethereum's creator has already stated that he quite regrets having adopted the term:

It actually doesn't. If that were the case, then why do content providers actually spend money to have others link to their site? The suggestion that publishing headlines with links to the actual article harms the news site borders on the absurd. Actually no, it goes well into the absurd. If this were actually the case, then news sites should be more than content to block links to their content. But of course they don't actually want that, because they'll lose traffic to their website and therefore ad revenue. In other words, links from news aggregators do exactly the opposite of what you suggest you do. But apparently that isn't enough for large media companies that contribute generously to politicians. They certainly aren't willing to give up the traffic that news aggregators provide, so they lobby politicians to make a law that forces them to maintain those links, and also to pay for the "privilege" of doing so. The fact that tech companies can "afford" to do this is hardly justification for passing a law that imposes a requirement for one industry to subsidize another.

Not sure if it was mentioned in the article (as it's paywalled) but evolution might have figured it out in part: 30-50% of East Asians have a genetic defect (or feature, depending on your perspective, I suppose) that inhibits the breakdown of acetaldehyde, a byproduct of alcohol metabolization. This excess acetaldehyde causes quite a number of uncomfortable physical effects, including flushing, nausea, headaches and an elevated pulse. It's sometimes referred to as "Asian flush". This genetic defect is often cited as a possible explanation for why the rate of alcoholism and alcohol-related cancers are much lower in East Asian populations. That being said, I have no idea whether the genetic defect arose as a response to the development of alcohol or not. Some research pegs the mutation as having first developed around 10,000 BC, while the the earliest known development of alcohol was around 7000-6600 BC, so maybe not. https://theconversation.com/wh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.penn.museum/resear...

Duplicacy is relatively new but pretty nifty. Was impressed by the features and performance as compared to the usual suspects - duplicity, duplicati, etc. etc. There were a few nits earlier on, but so far, so good. Cross platform and support for cloud storage. The page is a bit thin on features but you can find comparisons with the usual suspects in the forum. Pricing is pretty reasonable.

Of course not. Applying the same logic as these laws, Google will need to pay *them* to run their ads.

The fact that software is embedded into a device that is sold does not preclude the copy of the software in that device from being licensed. See Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011). I believe the John Deere case and others have also made that quite plain.

With respect to the first-sale doctrine, I do not believe your statement is correct. With respect to your examples, they would specifically be in violation of 106(2) (regarding the creation of derivative works) and, in the case of a painting, 106A(a)(3) (though the latter is not directly relevant to the situation with Tesla insofar as software would not be covered by 106A). The first sale doctrine does not extend to rights other than those of sale or disposition, and disposition does not include modification. The Ninth Circuit in Vernor specifically referenced Autodesk's prohibition on modifications..

Just to be clear, I'm not opining on what one should or should not be able to do, but rather the specific scope of the first-sale doctrine as it exists today. With respect to modifications of software by users, I would imagine there might be some wiggle room under the fair use doctrine, depending of course on the purposes of the modification. But not under first sale.

Accidentally hit submit. Just to continue: The first-sale doctrine does not grant any rights other than to sell or dispose. Consequently, a prohibition in the license agreement would be enforceable as the doctrine does not apply to that.

It might also be worthwhile nothing that the Ninth Circuit in Vernor significantly curtailed the application of the first-sale doctrine, finding that the copy of the software that came into the possession of Vernor was conveyed by way of a license, not a transfer of title in that copy and therefore the copyright owner (Autodesk) could indeed restrict the further sale or disposition of a copy of its software. AFAIK, Vernor is still good law.

While I have not read Tesla's license agreement, I suspect Tesla would have taken a similar approach.

Not quite accurate. The first-sale doctrine pertains only to sale or disposition of a copy of a work by the rightful owner of that copy.

sorry mistakenly moderated your comment as flamebait so commenting to undo that.

...if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred." - Woody Allen

That's because the former is a cost generator, while the latter is a revenue generator.