You're basically saying "down with capitalism". There's no way to work within the current system because everything that goes through it is bent towards profit and power. Do you really think companies would adopt such a T&C? Which would take precedence, the T&C or local/state/federal law?
No, GP is not saying 'down with capitalism.' They're saying 'down with restrictive terms of service similar in scope to the prevention of the Hush-A-Phone from being used on the Bell System in the 1950s.' Which, well, is pretty much the opposite of 'down with capitalism:'
The restriction from connecting your own devices to the Bell System forestalled the production, sale, and invention of devices such as the answering machine (Bell invented one in 1930, along with magnetic storage - but scrapped the project because they thought it would cause people to use the phone less), fax machine, and so on and so forth. The 1956 ruling against Bell in favor of Hush-A-Phone effectively allowed the invention, sale, and use of foreign attachments to the Bell System.
The restriction of doing what you want with your own console/computer is essentially the same damn thing. We've already fought this war against monopolists in technology; it's sad that we have to do it all over again.
OT, but: As I recall, it was the breakup of the Bell monopoly which ushered in the new devices. Until then, I don't think you could even own a phone. You had to lease.
I was pretty young then, but I do remember that after the breakup the market saw a rush of new phone devices.
I still have the first phone I ever bought, in 1985 right after the rules changed. (And because it was made by Western Electric in the good old days, it still works!)
Not really. The breakup of the Bell monopoly helped, but Hush-a-Phone vs. US helped set the stage for competing long distance carriers like MCI. It set the stage for devices like the Carterfone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone ). Things really didn't take off much until the breakup, because of the monopolistic practices of Ma Bell; even though interconnect was legal, they brought insane market pressure to bear.
Not at all. Capitalism is still the best we've come up with so far to align individual goals, desires and morals with those of the society as a whole (at least on average).
However, I don't see how this is different than a EULA. Not all the companies would adopt this. In fact most won't; but imagine a company, say a cell phone manufacturer, or a car maker (think Tesla) that says "We are adopting the XYZ T&C and privacy policy because we respect our users. We are committed to making the best products in our industry and do not need to rely on a bunch of legal traps to sell them." Would you buy from a company that does that? I would.
And of course the law takes precedence, just like it does with current T&C. The only thing is that the users are the ones who are originating the T&C, not the companies. That may be a very radical shift for corporate lawyers, but I don't see how this is science fiction otherwise. Just like the GPL, it could operate perfectly within the current system.
If the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection haven't brought down capitalism, why do you think having pre-written T&C that a company can opt to use would?
If anything, having easily understandable pre-written T&C in the style of similar license could only support capitalism: companies would opt to use them if they deemed it profitable, and consumers would be more able to make the informed decisions on which capitalism should thrive.
I also wonder how much cash the companies could save by not having to have lawyers involved in drafting custom T&Cs. One nice thing about GPL is that once a precedent is set, it's more or less followed everywhere. Same here: once the courts establish what this public T&C includes or excludes, it becomes much more clear what a company can and cannot do.
