I'm no censor. Quite the opposite, I've been accused of advocating for compelled service.
Accurately accused, no less.
I'm willing to allow too many people to speak
Nobody would give a fuck about that if you’d limit that idea to private property you own. But you’re advocating for a change in the law that would allow people to speak on private property they don’t own regardless of whether the owner of that property wants those people there or wants to host the type of speech they espouse.
I'm unwilling to block content, lest it ruin someone's online viewing experience if they were to see a differing viewpoint
“Gays should be tortured into being straight” is a “differing viewpoint”, Koby. So yes or no: Should a queer Twitter user be forced to see “conversion ‘therapy’ ” propaganda in their mentions only so Twitter can say it doesn’t “ruin someone’s online viewing experience” by blocking such speech from even being on the platform?
Jesus. You really couldn’t resist making an ass out of yourself, could you.
short message service (SMS) has 120 character limit which is clearly for two purposes: extracting money from the markets, and keeping large copyright infringements outside of the system
SMS exists because of technical limitations of text messaging at the time. Nobody at the time — and certainly nobody now — even gave copyright infringement a second thought. Copyright limitations have nothing to do with that.
twitter with their 200 character limit -- they've copied this pattern from SMS
Twitter’s initial character limit was copied from SMS to make it easier for people to transition from texting to tweeting. Copyright limitations didn’t have shit to do with that.
web browsers download features
Not an “innovation” so much as a logical step in thinking, and copyright limitations had nothing to do with it (obviously).
blocking of dcc transfers in irc networks
That’s not an “innovation” so much as it is a denial of a specific functionality on a specific IRC network. Not even remotely relevant here.
(c), (r), TM characters in fonts
Copyright in and of itself isn’t responsible for the existence of Unicode characters in fonts. That those characters exist in fonts has more to do with getting accurate symbols in fonts and making them available to the masses (thus negating the need for substitutes like yours) than it ever has to do with copyright limitations.
"quotes" for marking borrowed text
you gotta be fucking shitting me son
bibliography entries in scientific papers
you seriously gotta be joking here or else you’re just completely ignorant
youtube's contentID content recognition system
okay maybe I can grant you this one
computer games copy protection systems
and this one
user reputation systems in sites like stackexchange/stackoverflow
but now you’re being facetious
cryptocurrencies / bitcoin mining / proof of stake
and ridiculous
ability to ban users from facebook or twitter
and now I’m fucking done hahahahahaha holy shit are you really this fucking ignorant oh my god someone else gonna have to handle the rest of that shit I’m gonna laugh myself to death if I keep going aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
Most social media companies are petrified of legislation that would allow individuals to sue for selective enforcement if their own rules.
A gay man refers to himself as “queer” in the context of reclaiming a word once considered an anti-gay slur. A homophobe refers to gay men as “queer” in the context of slurring all gay men. If rules against hate speech had to be applied equally regardless of context thanks to a legal dictate from the government, a social media platform might punish either both users or neither user for using the same word. After all, if “queer” is still considered a slur, punishing both users would be “fair”, and if “queer” isn’t considered a slur any more, punishing neither user would be “fair”.
But here in reality, human moderation tends to look at context — and act accordingly. Rules may seem to be “selectively enforced” precisely because examining the use of a word in context can often reveal the true nature of its use. In my example, the gay man uses “queer” as a word of empowerment, while the homophobe uses “queer” as a word of disparagement. Punishing one (the homophobe) without punishing the other (the gay man) is, in this example, the only fair act for a social media service that strives for the inclusivity of once-marginalized voices.
big tech invents its rules on the fly, not out of fairness, but rather as a political weapon
Their rules don’t affect civil rights. Their rules don’t affect whether people can vote or marry or have an abortion. And their rules don’t affect anything outside of their specific platforms.
You want to see people who invent rules as political weapons? Look no further than the GOP.
You don't see a difference between a property owner enforcing rules on what can be done on their property by making people leave, and a military dictatorship enforcing its rules on a captive populace under threat of lethal force?
the whole point of this thread is that the software preservation society bothered to ask for permission, even though the content sucks more than a hoover
No, the point is you think preservationists asking to preserve your game is a signifier of quality or worth. It’s not. Hell, if you want proof that preservation does not indicate the subjective quality of what is being preserved, I have one movie title for you: Manos: The Hands of Fate. That film is regarded as one of the worst films ever made, but someone still spent a shitload of time and money to restore a long-lost workprint of the film and present said restoration in high definition. (Incidentally: Manos is a public domain film.)
What a preservationist thinks about your game is irrelevant. The only reason they’re preserving your game is because it exists, not because they think it’s somehow “worth preserving” due to its quality. When your only argument for the quality of your work is “someone saved it because it was there”, you’re owning yourself so hard that the only possible analogy I could make here would likely sound racist as fuck.
There's always competition between people asking for permissions from copyright owners and pirates who are using the same content without permission.
you don't need to make video cameras useless. Its enough to prevent the piracy use case. For example video cam that allows recording <20 second clips clearly works fine for many legal use cases, but using it to record full length movie is giving very bad result.
And if video cameras were only used by people making 20-second videos, you might have a point. But they’re not. They’re used by people making music videos and movies, filming police officers doing their jobs (or not), and many many other legal uses. Crippling a tool with numerous legal uses because someone might use it for an illegal act at some nebulous point in the future is lunacy — a move designed to placate the most hardline copyright maximalists for no reason other than “we make shitloads of money so do what we say”. You’re really that kind of bootlicker, huh, tp.
This kind of copyright innovation is giving us many cool technologies that would be illegal if those copyright protections would not be used.
Name ten technologies that were created exclusively by this “copyright innovation”. Note that shorter/more limited uses of existing technologies — e.g., Vine and its six-second videos — do not, I repeat, do not count as an “innovation”.
There are many different kinds of technologies that are in danger of being sued by the entertainment industry
Okay, let’s run down this list and—
1) torrent clients / bittorrent protocol software
…you’ve already lost the game.
Bittorrent, like many data transfer/communication protocols, is content agnostic. The protocol can’t tell whether the content you’re seeding is violating a copyright — nor should it be able to tell.
2) movie players / movie editing software
Ditto for VLC, Windows Media Maker, Source Filmmaker, and any other software that allows for the viewing/editing/creation of video files. To strip those apps of their primary functions because their primary functions could enable some form of copyright infringement — a stripping that you have endorsed in the past as a necessary part of a truly maximalist copyright scheme — is to make useless all of those apps.
3) youtube-dl / stream rippers
Fair Use. ’nuff said.
4) debugging tools for handling binary files / decompiling tools
As I’ve mentioned before: Taking the primary function out of an application because of copyright concerns is to render that app useless. Go ahead and help destroy all the code editors you use right now — then see how far you can get with Meshpage when you can’t even code it because the editor you used is rendered useless thanks to your own efforts.
5) movie subtitle software
Fair Use. ’nuff said.
6) settopboxes that can search/display movies from the internet
Well there goes every Roku device (and every TV with Roku functionality built it).
7) computer games DRM cracking tools / decss
Fair Use and format shifting. ’nuff said.
8) music players like napster or limewire
did you…did you seriously just…
…oh my fucking god you’re a full decade behind the times, minimum
neither of those apps were even “music players”, and neither of them have been a thing in years — hell, napster even went legal years after its original shutdown and nobody cared
jfc, tp, get your shit together in a backpack
9) tools for creating demos/intros for the purpose of distributing pirated games
The same tools used to create animations and games are often the same tools used to create those intros. Besides: To my knowledge, nobody does that shit any more. That was an ’80s/’90s thing, and it was largely limited to the PC scene for obvious reasons.
10) web browsers and other tools that allow "downloading" material from the internet
Two things.
Love the scare quotes around “downloading”. Really brings out the ignorance behind your eyes.
You can’t remove that functionality without removing the ability to download legal content — including documents such as pre-filled tax forms, utility bills, and the like — that a not-zero number of people would need to download.
11) web sites that contain large catalogs of content, like youtube or software preservation society
Well, then, say goodbye to Standard Ebooks. And the Internet Archive. And abandonware sites. And other similar archival efforts that are perfectly legal but must fall to appease the gods of Copyright. I mean, why give a fuck about saving our disappearing culture — music, books, games, video broadcasts, whatever — when Disney needs to make sure only Disney can still legally distribute nearly century-old cartoons?
12) video cameras that help pirates record movie files from movie theater...
yeah good fucking luck with getting rid of video cameras just because a few assholes use them to camrip the latest Marvel movie
authors of software in the above categories, need to be extreamly careful of not stirring the soup
So long as their apps have even one legal use and aren’t intended to be used as an engine of infringement, no court would (or should, at any rate) dare to say “yeah someone used this app to download an episode of a Netflix show, so you need to kill the app”. That you believe people using software with plenty of legal uses as part of an unlawful act is a good enough reason to annihilate that software — some of which you’ve likely used to code your own projects and even browse this site — speaks more to your sociopathic belief in copyright maximalism at all costs than anything else. None of what is being said makes you look even remotely good.
If your product is in above categories and pirates do not bother to use it for evil, then it's clear that the product has been correctly designed
No, what’s clear is that the pirates have better (or at least more preferred) apps at their disposal. A pirate using a video player app other than VLC to rip a YouTube video doesn’t mean VLC can’t be used to rip YouTube videos — it means the pirate doesn’t use VLC for that purpose.
It's not a badge of shame, if your copyright protection features are working well enough that pirates do not bother to crack it.
Every kind of DRM can be cracked. All it takes is time. But if nobody bothers to crack your DRM and pirate your app, the reason probably isn’t “the DRM is uncrackable” — it’s most likely that your app sucks more than a Hoover and nobody wants to even bother with it.
Again, tp: Bringing up the fact that pirates haven’t even bothered with Meshpage is a gigantic self-own that you probably don’t want to keep bringing up.
consider the position of the software preservation society, when they spend their valuable time for asking permission to publish the boring game on their web site
I’m sure ROM sites that host Atari games have E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. That fact alone doesn’t make the game any better than it was back in its day.
True preservationists don’t give a fuck about preserving only “good” culture. They give a fuck about preserving all culture, regardless of what people think about it. Don’t mistake their archival of your game as a judgment of quality; they don’t care if it sucks, even if they actually believe it sucks.
this society decided that following copyright is important enough activity that even these boring games need the permission before placing it to the web page
I’mma get back to those last six words in a moment…
An archival/cultural preservation group will usually ask for permission because it’s easy and it’s always nice to have. But if permission either can’t or won’t be granted, such groups don’t always play by the rules you think they’re forced to play by. Consider the case of the archival of Flash movies/games in the wake of the death of Flash: Do you really think the archivists on those projects asked thousands upon thousands of people — some of whom may not be alive any more — for permission to archive works from the infancy of Flash animation to, say, last year?
Copyright is why archival efforts such as ROM packs are in a precarious position: The companies/people who published those games still hold copyrights on them, even though many of them are long out of print and will likely never be sold again for a myriad of reasons. (Hi there, Whomp ’Em for the NES!) Archiving such games still violates copyright, regardless of whether the archival is meant to be a true preservationist effort or just an excuse to distribute ROMs.
Do you want the archiving of culture to be made easier? Help change copyright law so it can be made easier. If you don’t? Fight to make copyright law so strong that not even your explicit and expressed permission would let someone archive your game. Your choice.
Oh, and one more thing: “placing it to the web page”? That phrase sounds an awful lot like…y’know…what you claim your Meshpage software does. Does that mean you’re admitting that this “teleporting” technology you keep ranting about isn’t some new “innovation” you pulled from your anal cavity?
Seems like maybe all the negative press around the attempt by a bunch of thin-skinned dipshits to cancel a critic (who was maybe more accurate than said dipshits would care to admit) was the big reason for Stanford’s decision to resolve the complaint “as expeditiously as possible”. 🤔
They should do it in a scale that they can do right.
They literally can’t — not without spending far more money and hiring far more people than should ever be necessary for a moderation team.
The whole point of saying “moderation doesn’t scale” is to point out how moderating a small community is always going to be easier than moderating a large community. If you’re moderating a group of a couple dozen people or so, you’re gonna have an easier time of telling people to knock their bullshit off — mostly because a community that small will have its own quirks and contexts under which it can be moderated. But a community of a couple…oh, let’s say a couple hundred thousand people will require far more moderators and far harder calls to make because those people can branch into subcommunities and develop their own quirks and contexts that won’t parse universally. The ability to moderate all those people doesn’t scale well when compared to the ability to moderate a much smaller amount of people.
Even people who moderate small communities never get it right 100% of the time. How do you expect a company/service/“community” as large as Twitter to get it perfect?
More and more people want that distinction. More and more people want equal treatment.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host out of fairness to the people who espouse such speech?
What about a privately owned gym, where conversations are certainly bound to happen?
What about a privately owned skate park?
What about a privately owned...okay, you get the point.
And that point is this: Koby sincerely believes that any privately owned open-to-the-public space must be the equivalent of a public forum and therefore subject to the First Amendment (meaning that space can’t restrict speech, since it is a de facto government actor). What Koby fails to realize is a Trump-appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America already demolished that belief. Koby is simply too stubborn to admit he’s wrong…which is the surest sign of an asshole if there ever was one.
No one is entitled to an argument, debate, or conversation. That holds true on social media, too: No user has the right to butt into your conversation, compel you into listening to them, and compel you to debate them on their terms.
I had to use two copypastas here. Why do you make me do this, Koby. Why you gotta be this ignorant.
When tech monopolies create the internet version of a public square
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion:
Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.
…
When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
…
A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.
So…read that, learn from that, and stop getting that shit wrong, dude.
Corporations must live up to their contracts, and must provide equal service to their customers without bias.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Accurately accused, no less.
Nobody would give a fuck about that if you’d limit that idea to private property you own. But you’re advocating for a change in the law that would allow people to speak on private property they don’t own regardless of whether the owner of that property wants those people there or wants to host the type of speech they espouse.
“Gays should be tortured into being straight” is a “differing viewpoint”, Koby. So yes or no: Should a queer Twitter user be forced to see “conversion ‘therapy’ ” propaganda in their mentions only so Twitter can say it doesn’t “ruin someone’s online viewing experience” by blocking such speech from even being on the platform?
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
Jesus. You really couldn’t resist making an ass out of yourself, could you.
SMS exists because of technical limitations of text messaging at the time. Nobody at the time — and certainly nobody now — even gave copyright infringement a second thought. Copyright limitations have nothing to do with that.
Twitter’s initial character limit was copied from SMS to make it easier for people to transition from texting to tweeting. Copyright limitations didn’t have shit to do with that.
Not an “innovation” so much as a logical step in thinking, and copyright limitations had nothing to do with it (obviously).
That’s not an “innovation” so much as it is a denial of a specific functionality on a specific IRC network. Not even remotely relevant here.
Copyright in and of itself isn’t responsible for the existence of Unicode characters in fonts. That those characters exist in fonts has more to do with getting accurate symbols in fonts and making them available to the masses (thus negating the need for substitutes like yours) than it ever has to do with copyright limitations.
you gotta be fucking shitting me son
you seriously gotta be joking here or else you’re just completely ignorant
okay maybe I can grant you this one
and this one
but now you’re being facetious
and ridiculous
and now I’m fucking done hahahahahaha holy shit are you really this fucking ignorant oh my god someone else gonna have to handle the rest of that shit I’m gonna laugh myself to death if I keep going aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
A gay man refers to himself as “queer” in the context of reclaiming a word once considered an anti-gay slur. A homophobe refers to gay men as “queer” in the context of slurring all gay men. If rules against hate speech had to be applied equally regardless of context thanks to a legal dictate from the government, a social media platform might punish either both users or neither user for using the same word. After all, if “queer” is still considered a slur, punishing both users would be “fair”, and if “queer” isn’t considered a slur any more, punishing neither user would be “fair”.
But here in reality, human moderation tends to look at context — and act accordingly. Rules may seem to be “selectively enforced” precisely because examining the use of a word in context can often reveal the true nature of its use. In my example, the gay man uses “queer” as a word of empowerment, while the homophobe uses “queer” as a word of disparagement. Punishing one (the homophobe) without punishing the other (the gay man) is, in this example, the only fair act for a social media service that strives for the inclusivity of once-marginalized voices.
Their rules don’t affect civil rights. Their rules don’t affect whether people can vote or marry or have an abortion. And their rules don’t affect anything outside of their specific platforms.
You want to see people who invent rules as political weapons? Look no further than the GOP.
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
No, Koby does not.
On the post: Small Town Police Chief Hit With Actual Criminal Charges After Threatening A Critic With Bogus Criminal Charges
Power doesn’t corrupt — it reveals.
On the post: Small Town Police Chief Hit With Actual Criminal Charges After Threatening A Critic With Bogus Criminal Charges
I can’t wait to see all the people who whine about “censorship” on social media decry this instance of actual censorship.
Any minute now… ⏲️
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
No, the point is you think preservationists asking to preserve your game is a signifier of quality or worth. It’s not. Hell, if you want proof that preservation does not indicate the subjective quality of what is being preserved, I have one movie title for you: Manos: The Hands of Fate. That film is regarded as one of the worst films ever made, but someone still spent a shitload of time and money to restore a long-lost workprint of the film and present said restoration in high definition. (Incidentally: Manos is a public domain film.)
What a preservationist thinks about your game is irrelevant. The only reason they’re preserving your game is because it exists, not because they think it’s somehow “worth preserving” due to its quality. When your only argument for the quality of your work is “someone saved it because it was there”, you’re owning yourself so hard that the only possible analogy I could make here would likely sound racist as fuck.
…fucking what
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
I’m more than happy to be corrected on that point. 👍
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
And if video cameras were only used by people making 20-second videos, you might have a point. But they’re not. They’re used by people making music videos and movies, filming police officers doing their jobs (or not), and many many other legal uses. Crippling a tool with numerous legal uses because someone might use it for an illegal act at some nebulous point in the future is lunacy — a move designed to placate the most hardline copyright maximalists for no reason other than “we make shitloads of money so do what we say”. You’re really that kind of bootlicker, huh, tp.
Name ten technologies that were created exclusively by this “copyright innovation”. Note that shorter/more limited uses of existing technologies — e.g., Vine and its six-second videos — do not, I repeat, do not count as an “innovation”.
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
Okay, let’s run down this list and—
…you’ve already lost the game.
Bittorrent, like many data transfer/communication protocols, is content agnostic. The protocol can’t tell whether the content you’re seeding is violating a copyright — nor should it be able to tell.
Ditto for VLC, Windows Media Maker, Source Filmmaker, and any other software that allows for the viewing/editing/creation of video files. To strip those apps of their primary functions because their primary functions could enable some form of copyright infringement — a stripping that you have endorsed in the past as a necessary part of a truly maximalist copyright scheme — is to make useless all of those apps.
Fair Use. ’nuff said.
As I’ve mentioned before: Taking the primary function out of an application because of copyright concerns is to render that app useless. Go ahead and help destroy all the code editors you use right now — then see how far you can get with Meshpage when you can’t even code it because the editor you used is rendered useless thanks to your own efforts.
Fair Use. ’nuff said.
Well there goes every Roku device (and every TV with Roku functionality built it).
Fair Use and format shifting. ’nuff said.
did you…did you seriously just…
…oh my fucking god you’re a full decade behind the times, minimum
neither of those apps were even “music players”, and neither of them have been a thing in years — hell, napster even went legal years after its original shutdown and nobody cared
jfc, tp, get your shit together in a backpack
The same tools used to create animations and games are often the same tools used to create those intros. Besides: To my knowledge, nobody does that shit any more. That was an ’80s/’90s thing, and it was largely limited to the PC scene for obvious reasons.
Two things.
Love the scare quotes around “downloading”. Really brings out the ignorance behind your eyes.
Well, then, say goodbye to Standard Ebooks. And the Internet Archive. And abandonware sites. And other similar archival efforts that are perfectly legal but must fall to appease the gods of Copyright. I mean, why give a fuck about saving our disappearing culture — music, books, games, video broadcasts, whatever — when Disney needs to make sure only Disney can still legally distribute nearly century-old cartoons?
yeah good fucking luck with getting rid of video cameras just because a few assholes use them to camrip the latest Marvel movie
So long as their apps have even one legal use and aren’t intended to be used as an engine of infringement, no court would (or should, at any rate) dare to say “yeah someone used this app to download an episode of a Netflix show, so you need to kill the app”. That you believe people using software with plenty of legal uses as part of an unlawful act is a good enough reason to annihilate that software — some of which you’ve likely used to code your own projects and even browse this site — speaks more to your sociopathic belief in copyright maximalism at all costs than anything else. None of what is being said makes you look even remotely good.
No, what’s clear is that the pirates have better (or at least more preferred) apps at their disposal. A pirate using a video player app other than VLC to rip a YouTube video doesn’t mean VLC can’t be used to rip YouTube videos — it means the pirate doesn’t use VLC for that purpose.
Every kind of DRM can be cracked. All it takes is time. But if nobody bothers to crack your DRM and pirate your app, the reason probably isn’t “the DRM is uncrackable” — it’s most likely that your app sucks more than a Hoover and nobody wants to even bother with it.
Again, tp: Bringing up the fact that pirates haven’t even bothered with Meshpage is a gigantic self-own that you probably don’t want to keep bringing up.
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
Admitting that pirates haven’t bothered to steal your shit is a huge own-goal, tp. You might want to reconsider making that point ever again.
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
I’m sure ROM sites that host Atari games have E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. That fact alone doesn’t make the game any better than it was back in its day.
True preservationists don’t give a fuck about preserving only “good” culture. They give a fuck about preserving all culture, regardless of what people think about it. Don’t mistake their archival of your game as a judgment of quality; they don’t care if it sucks, even if they actually believe it sucks.
I’mma get back to those last six words in a moment…
An archival/cultural preservation group will usually ask for permission because it’s easy and it’s always nice to have. But if permission either can’t or won’t be granted, such groups don’t always play by the rules you think they’re forced to play by. Consider the case of the archival of Flash movies/games in the wake of the death of Flash: Do you really think the archivists on those projects asked thousands upon thousands of people — some of whom may not be alive any more — for permission to archive works from the infancy of Flash animation to, say, last year?
Copyright is why archival efforts such as ROM packs are in a precarious position: The companies/people who published those games still hold copyrights on them, even though many of them are long out of print and will likely never be sold again for a myriad of reasons. (Hi there, Whomp ’Em for the NES!) Archiving such games still violates copyright, regardless of whether the archival is meant to be a true preservationist effort or just an excuse to distribute ROMs.
Do you want the archiving of culture to be made easier? Help change copyright law so it can be made easier. If you don’t? Fight to make copyright law so strong that not even your explicit and expressed permission would let someone archive your game. Your choice.
Oh, and one more thing: “placing it to the web page”? That phrase sounds an awful lot like…y’know…what you claim your Meshpage software does. Does that mean you’re admitting that this “teleporting” technology you keep ranting about isn’t some new “innovation” you pulled from your anal cavity?
On the post: A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue
Wow, that looks…boring as hell, even for a action-puzzle game.
Also: ha ha, oh wow — nearly 20 years later and Meshpage still can’t make anything that looks more impressive than the crack group tag on that video.
On the post: Stanford Federalist Society Tries To 'Cancel' Law Student For Satirical Email About Josh Hawley
🚨 UPDATE 🚨
The investigation has been dropped. He will be allowed to graduate.
Seems like maybe all the negative press around the attempt by a bunch of thin-skinned dipshits to cancel a critic (who was maybe more accurate than said dipshits would care to admit) was the big reason for Stanford’s decision to resolve the complaint “as expeditiously as possible”. 🤔
On the post: It's Not Personal: Content Moderation Always Involves Mistakes, Including Suspending Experts Sharing Knowledge
They literally can’t — not without spending far more money and hiring far more people than should ever be necessary for a moderation team.
The whole point of saying “moderation doesn’t scale” is to point out how moderating a small community is always going to be easier than moderating a large community. If you’re moderating a group of a couple dozen people or so, you’re gonna have an easier time of telling people to knock their bullshit off — mostly because a community that small will have its own quirks and contexts under which it can be moderated. But a community of a couple…oh, let’s say a couple hundred thousand people will require far more moderators and far harder calls to make because those people can branch into subcommunities and develop their own quirks and contexts that won’t parse universally. The ability to moderate all those people doesn’t scale well when compared to the ability to moderate a much smaller amount of people.
Even people who moderate small communities never get it right 100% of the time. How do you expect a company/service/“community” as large as Twitter to get it perfect?
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
A slight addition to my One Simple Question.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host out of fairness to the people who espouse such speech?
On the post: Trump Bans Himself From His Own Blog; Upset That Everyone Mocked Its Terrible Traffic
I’m not going to laugh, I’m not going to laugh, I’m not going to laugh…
…aw, fuck it
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha what a fucking chump 🤣
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
What about a privately owned gym, where conversations are certainly bound to happen?
What about a privately owned skate park?
What about a privately owned...okay, you get the point.
And that point is this: Koby sincerely believes that any privately owned open-to-the-public space must be the equivalent of a public forum and therefore subject to the First Amendment (meaning that space can’t restrict speech, since it is a de facto government actor). What Koby fails to realize is a Trump-appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America already demolished that belief. Koby is simply too stubborn to admit he’s wrong…which is the surest sign of an asshole if there ever was one.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
No one is entitled to an argument, debate, or conversation. That holds true on social media, too: No user has the right to butt into your conversation, compel you into listening to them, and compel you to debate them on their terms.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
JFC, dude.
I had to use two copypastas here. Why do you make me do this, Koby. Why you gotta be this ignorant.
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion:
So…read that, learn from that, and stop getting that shit wrong, dude.
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Next >>