No, you haven’t. You have offered no proof to back up your claim that download managers in modern web browsers function the way they do because of copyright law.
I don't expect your verification results
I don’t have to prove a negative and I don’t have to do your work for you. You made the claim, so the burden of proving its truthfulness lies with you. Prove your claim is factual or shut the fuck up forever.
To be fair, I think the concept of copyright is utterly broken and needs to be at least completely retooled for the digital age (if such a thing is even possible). I believe in the public domain—it should be grown at a much faster rate (e.g., add any work made more than 20 years ago to the public domain immediately) and protected from those who would abolish it out of a lust for money/power (e.g., copyright lawyers, the Meshpage guy). Long live culture; fuck copyright.
In-browser download managers are used to keep track of downloads, not to download files themselves. That’s how they’ve always worked, in my experience. Whatever limitations in-browser download managers may have, they are not the result of copyright law and you can’t even come close to proving otherwise in a way that matters to people who live outside of your alternative reality.
The value of what an act of copying produces is irrelevant to the fact that the act of copying has taken place.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
This kind of issues can be resolved by providing significant value.
Value is irrelevant. Copying is copying, no matter how accidental or how little.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
You’d still be a criminal, though. You’d be an infringer, a copier, a filthy motherfucking pirate.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
Guess it's this "we must get everything with cheapest price" that causes this kind of mishaps.
Whether someone bought a game that comes with Denuvo DRM for $60 or $6 is irrelevant—the DRM doesn’t (and can’t) know how much the end user paid for the software to which the DRM is attached. And considering that game publishers expect Denuvo DRM to slow down piracy to a significant degree, I doubt they’re underpaying Denuvo for that service.
When customers don't bother to hand enough money to vendors, the vendors will not bother making DRM work properly
Any publisher that sabotages a customer’s software via DRM because that customer may not have paid full price for the software is a publisher that will soon have a poor reputation…and maybe a lawsuit or two landing on its doorstep.
when DRM do not work properly, paying customers will suffer
That’s why some paying customers inevitably turn to piracy: At least the pirated product will work as the legit product would without DRM fucking things up. Anyone who buys a game for $60 wants their game to work right from the get-go. If piracy is the only way they can get the game they bought to work right, that says more about DRM than it says about piracy.
DRM (initialism for “Digital Rights Management”) — noun — closed-source black box code that acts as the digital equivalent of an ankle bracelet tracking device for paying customers but does nothing to prevent copyright infringement carried out by non-paying customers; colloquially known as “Digital Restrictions Management”; a stupid fucking idea
There's plenty of things to explore in the 600 features
Yes or no: Can every single one of those features all prevent any infringement on every bit of copyrighted material that exists anywhere in the world at the moment of input without sacrificing any functionality to do so?
You can create the material yourself, but you won’t be able to make anything wholly original because you’d still be working off the inspiration you gained from the works of others—i.e., you’d still be capable of infringing by accident. You can license material, but under your logic, copying even licensed material is still infringement because it’s still copying the material.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
A society which considers the right for everyone to bear arms so vital possession of a firearm is less restricted than possessing a car, a ballot slip, or a credit card, will be racking up a horribly high count of needlessly dead people. That's just how it is.
Knowing this fact and accepting it as an unchangeable fact of life are two different notions. I’m willing to grant, per your comment and others in this discussion, that lethal force was the only viable option in this situation—but that doesn’t change my stance on police violence. As you and others have said, how things got to this point should be as big an issue as (if not a bigger issue than) the violent response from the police.
Violence only ever makes more problems than it solves. So does relying on the police for every problem with which other social services could help. Much like lethal violence, calling the police should be a last resort in situations such as these. Hell, in this specific situation, maybe it was.
The fact that, within the United States, gun ownership is an inalienable human right and healthcare is a privilege shouldn’t be cause for celebrating “who and what we are”.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
No, you haven’t. You have offered no proof to back up your claim that download managers in modern web browsers function the way they do because of copyright law.
I don’t have to prove a negative and I don’t have to do your work for you. You made the claim, so the burden of proving its truthfulness lies with you. Prove your claim is factual or shut the fuck up forever.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Spreads False Claim Biden FCC Nom Wants To 'Censor Conservatives.' NewsMax & OAN Immediately Prove Him Wrong.
On the flip side of things, we have a school board in Virginia threatening to burn books. I bet you won’t hear any of Murdoch’s outlets shittalking that situation, though.
On the post: Missouri Admits It Fucked Up In Exposing Teacher Data, Offers Apology To Teachers -- But Not To Journalists It Falsely Accused Of Hacking
You have 99 bugs in your program. You patch one. You now have 127 bugs in your program.
On the post: The Curious Case Of Billionaire Brian Sheth, An Anonymous Tweeter, Copyright Law, Twitter, And Some Company That Barely Seems To Exist
Methinks the copyright exploiters doth protest too much.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
You can claim anything you want. Proving that claim true requires more than “because I said so”.
On the post: Denuvo Games Once Again Broken For Paying Customers Thanks To DRM Mishap
Fuckin’ FCC assholes…
On the post: Denuvo Games Once Again Broken For Paying Customers Thanks To DRM Mishap
To be fair, I think the concept of copyright is utterly broken and needs to be at least completely retooled for the digital age (if such a thing is even possible). I believe in the public domain—it should be grown at a much faster rate (e.g., add any work made more than 20 years ago to the public domain immediately) and protected from those who would abolish it out of a lust for money/power (e.g., copyright lawyers, the Meshpage guy). Long live culture; fuck copyright.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
In-browser download managers are used to keep track of downloads, not to download files themselves. That’s how they’ve always worked, in my experience. Whatever limitations in-browser download managers may have, they are not the result of copyright law and you can’t even come close to proving otherwise in a way that matters to people who live outside of your alternative reality.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
The value of what an act of copying produces is irrelevant to the fact that the act of copying has taken place.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Value is irrelevant. Copying is copying, no matter how accidental or how little.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
On the post: Denuvo Games Once Again Broken For Paying Customers Thanks To DRM Mishap
Fair points. 👍
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
You’d still be a criminal, though. You’d be an infringer, a copier, a filthy motherfucking pirate.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
On the post: Denuvo Games Once Again Broken For Paying Customers Thanks To DRM Mishap
Whether someone bought a game that comes with Denuvo DRM for $60 or $6 is irrelevant—the DRM doesn’t (and can’t) know how much the end user paid for the software to which the DRM is attached. And considering that game publishers expect Denuvo DRM to slow down piracy to a significant degree, I doubt they’re underpaying Denuvo for that service.
Any publisher that sabotages a customer’s software via DRM because that customer may not have paid full price for the software is a publisher that will soon have a poor reputation…and maybe a lawsuit or two landing on its doorstep.
That’s why some paying customers inevitably turn to piracy: At least the pirated product will work as the legit product would without DRM fucking things up. Anyone who buys a game for $60 wants their game to work right from the get-go. If piracy is the only way they can get the game they bought to work right, that says more about DRM than it says about piracy.
On the post: Denuvo Games Once Again Broken For Paying Customers Thanks To DRM Mishap
A relevant bit of copypasta:
DRM (initialism for “Digital Rights Management”) — noun — closed-source black box code that acts as the digital equivalent of an ankle bracelet tracking device for paying customers but does nothing to prevent copyright infringement carried out by non-paying customers; colloquially known as “Digital Restrictions Management”; a stupid fucking idea
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Yes or no: Can every single one of those features all prevent any infringement on every bit of copyrighted material that exists anywhere in the world at the moment of input without sacrificing any functionality to do so?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
You can create the material yourself, but you won’t be able to make anything wholly original because you’d still be working off the inspiration you gained from the works of others—i.e., you’d still be capable of infringing by accident. You can license material, but under your logic, copying even licensed material is still infringement because it’s still copying the material.
Yes or no: Under the “all copying is infringement” logic you’ve presented, if you’ve copied even one small part of someone else’s prior work regardless of the context of that copying, are you guilty of copyright infringement?
On the post: Missouri Admits It Fucked Up In Exposing Teacher Data, Offers Apology To Teachers -- But Not To Journalists It Falsely Accused Of Hacking
Of course the reporters won’t receive an apology. An apology requires the person(s) apologizing to admit some kind of fault with their own actions.
On the post: Austin Homeowners Association Pitches In To Help Cops Kill A Guy Over Uncut Grass
Knowing this fact and accepting it as an unchangeable fact of life are two different notions. I’m willing to grant, per your comment and others in this discussion, that lethal force was the only viable option in this situation—but that doesn’t change my stance on police violence. As you and others have said, how things got to this point should be as big an issue as (if not a bigger issue than) the violent response from the police.
Violence only ever makes more problems than it solves. So does relying on the police for every problem with which other social services could help. Much like lethal violence, calling the police should be a last resort in situations such as these. Hell, in this specific situation, maybe it was.
On the post: Austin Homeowners Association Pitches In To Help Cops Kill A Guy Over Uncut Grass
The fact that, within the United States, gun ownership is an inalienable human right and healthcare is a privilege shouldn’t be cause for celebrating “who and what we are”.
Next >>