Maybe he’s just enthusiastic about a game that does something he’s into?

https://fortelabs.co/blog/the-secret-power-of-read-it-later-apps

So this article was included with Omnivore, which is suggested elsewhere in this thread, but it does provide a bunch of well structured arguments for the utility of a dedicated app.

Thanks for this. I don’t usually dive into longer format article stuff because I find it on my phone and reading on my phone sucks. I tried pocket, but it didn’t function at all on my reader.

This solves that problem reasonably well.

(Edit: also an RSS reader? Maybe I should start using RSS again. I do wish it offered paged navigation controls to better work on an ereader, but it’s definitely an improvement still.)

I would much rather pay full price than still pay for a DRMed version that’s effectively guaranteed to be supporting some sort of organized crime group. Mass distribution at scale, with DRM, by definition means Russian organized crime, or a drug cartel, or some other global bad actor on that scale that’s doing shit like trafficking humans, arms dealing, drugs, etc, as well.

But ignoring that (and that I generally buy my content), I wouldn’t pay $.10 for an illegitimate copy that had an added layer of DRM on it. It’s fundamentally fucking repulsive for some subgroup whose whole business relies on bypassing someone else’s copy control to add their own.

DRM on pirated games is fucking gross as shit.

I tried. It’s basically the only app I couldn’t get to work on my boox.

Yeah it’s not really supposed to be “funny”. It’s just Barney being corny because that’s who the character is. (When he’s not being a sociopath with women.)

This is part of it.

But also you almost always only get those offers on transaction where they still make comfortable profit on the product if you just treat the interest they’re subsidizing as a discount on the product.

This isn’t really Facebook. This is Adobe not drawing a distinction between smart pattern recognition for backgrounds/textures and real image generation of primary content.

Gimp’s UX is a trainwreck. “Approachable tools” is the key bit there.

I don’t use photoshop. Fuck subscription horseshit. I use affinity. But Gimp having capability is fine, but it has a super high barrier to entry because the design is so bad.

How the GPL works is that anyone who buys the game is fully entitled to share the source code with anyone else completely legitimately (modified or unmodified), provided they include the license.

It’s not piracy to do so.

That’s not a different or added risk vs a website.

The only change is that it’s significantly easier to keep an archive going.

It’s not theirs. What you grant them is a non-revocable permanent worldwide license to use the content.

This is mostly necessary for the service to function, which is why it never really got pushback in the “early days” when communities were more tech literate. You need to be able to serve the content to users, and to a lesser extent being able to share popular active discussion topics is a big part of enabling the service to form communities.

What clearly isn’t necessary is the “non-revocable” part. People should be able to delete their posts, and excluding for the purpose of moderation, have them removed. What also would be part of an “ethical” platform (to me), is a clear restriction in purpose to that license. I would limit my rights to the ability to use the content for the purpose of providing the “forum”(/whatever), moderation, and sharing public posts/comments to attract people to the community. But that’s something that isn’t trivial to write a contract for, and it is worth noting that unless they gave away DMs (which is extra awful), all of this content was deliberately public.

You could, as a host of an instance, have mostly whatever terms you want. The code is open source and it’s not typical for open source licenses (including the GPL) to restrict things like that (you could probably structure a license that qualified as open source to prevent you from doing abusive things to end users of a service, but restricting how you serve it at all is unusual).

The DMCA process is pretty good. All you have to do is counterclaim and the host/platform can put your content back up unless the claimant actually files in court. Also, without the safe harbor protections, it would be almost impossible for sites to allow user content at all, because they’d potentially be liable for infringement of users.

ContentID goes way past DMCA requirements and proactively allows copyright holders to have content automatically taken down, without a clear and fair process to appeal, and without due diligence that holders actually legitimately own the content they’re claiming.

In the motion for reconsideration, the movie companies argued that Cox and other ISPs are not just mere conduit providers under DMCA §512(a); they would also fall under DMCA §512(d), as they can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

If this argument succeeds, a DMCA subpoena would be valid, as these do apply to services that fall under DMCA §512(d).

The movie companies used various arguments to make their case. For example, they argued that IP addresses are in themselves “references or links to infringing material” which can be disabled through null-routing. In addition, Cox can respond to takedown notices by implementing filters or blocking ports

Seriously fuck off. That’s batshit insane.

The streamers are the content owners.

That’s why the market is so shit now. Because everyone who owns anything split into their own streaming service with 2 shows and 200 pieces of shit.

Oh my god. It can play a video stream from a url? What a truly awful piece of software.

Holy shit is their “evidence” that this lady is actually responsible for the site pathetic.

I’d love to see some kind of legal change such that companies are required to take some steps to enable abandoned online games to stay playable if third parties wish to do the work (eg, on penalty of losing the IP rights to the public domain if they are unable to do so). I recognize that that would be a relatively high ask though.

“Don’t arbitrarily revoke the licenses of games people bought for the sole purpose of taking the game away from them” is not a big ask, though. It’s barely the bare minimum.

If it’s a DMCA takedown notice, both GitHub and GitLab are required to take it down. There is no real agency on the part of the hosting site.

It’s up to the uploader to counterclaim and enable the host to make the content accessible again.