He built a website. He didn't dictate how people used it. That was the point. He was charged as a drug kingpin with mobster era consequences. His sentence didn't fit whatever crimes he did or didn't commit.
634 karma · joined January 16, 2017
If you are making money from something or using it enough that you want support / reliability, pay for it and shame on you if you don't
Don't gimp your cracked stuff for the college kids and evening hacks just trying to see if they like something or if they can build its use into a business.
I need to be able to sit at my drums and control basic recording / playback features in ableton.
Why didn't the author just take the "beer dispenser" and use it to dispense something else? The pipes, tubes, mechanisms don't only work for beer. Or just sell it or donate it if it bothered him that much.
Enabling companies to categorize themselves as 'platforms' or otherwise and then stipulating both benefits and requirements based on those labels makes a lot of sense comparatively. The general problem though is that the government isn't typically using regulations to improve freedom and competition. The government looks at regulation as a way to extract money, so solutions that encourage competition on a level playing field through market forces (like OP's) aren't given fair consideration.
Tariffs don't solve these problems either. OP's suggestion is pretty decent idea relative to playing wack a mole with price fixing while trying to make sure your country's corps can compete on the global market.
If someone could guarantee rock solid stability, I *might be willing to switch, even though I'm fairly invested in the Ableton / VST world. 10 years of projects will likely force me to always run mac / windows unless Ableton decides to build for linux in the future. Who knows, maybe ARM will force their hand.
It seems likely, but calling the case 'solved' just based on that is a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe the article is leaving out some important details.