![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/44bf11eb-4336-40eb-9778-e96fc5223124.png)
Why are you booing them? They’re right!
Why are you booing them? They’re right!
It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”
It’s not that hard.
Fuck the RIAA: The artists should hold the rights to their music, not the publishers.
Fuck AI: The rights-holders (which ought to be the artists) should be able to distribute their work without fear that a bot will be allowed to use it to compete against them.
I just don’t see a healthy creative culture where you don’t push both buttons.
Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL
Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!
Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”
Article: literally has a section explaining how
Edit:
Replies: “Yeah, but that’s just a summary. I’ll believe it when they explain in full detail.”
Article: literally has a link to the detailed explanation
Silly goose, you don’t own Windows — you license it.
If Miyamoto is succeeded by someone with Gabe’s pro-consumer philosophy, Nintendo could dominate.
Sony and Microsoft are too busy doing the private equity playbook.
It is kinda brilliant though, the way they set it up.
If you don’t like the joke, you can always fall back to the meta level: this is a 40-something dad recalling how dumb and cringe-worthy he and his friends were in their 20s.
Get involved with Represent.Us, the site that was linked to.
They have a pretty good strategy, and they have been making progress.
Governance is discouraging because it’s complex. And when things are complex, it’s difficult to see progress and it’s easy to predict that there will be problems.
It’s also difficult (and unrewarding) to have serious conversations about this stuff on social media.
The posts get too long, with no satisfying simplistic conclusion, and even if you make an incredible magnum opus of a post that acknowledges enough complexity to be realistic while also being short and snappy enough to catch people’s attention… it drops off of the trending posts algorithm after a day.
Interacting with people whose tone doesn’t match their words may induce anxiety as well.
Have they actually proven this is a good idea, or is this a “so preoccupied with whether or not they could” scenario?
I think part of the problem is that when you read about the horrors of the Holocaust as a kid, you can’t help but think of Nazi Germany as a cartoonishly, outlandishly evil place full of people who spend every waking second thinking about how much they hate impure bloodlines.
You come away with an impression that it should be obvious when genocide is happening.
Then you go home after school and you see something about genocide in the Middle East, and you ask your parents about it and they say “Well… it’s complicated.” And if it’s complicated – if it’s not cartoonishly, outlandishly evil – then it must not be genocide.
Steam is so funny.
Buying there instead of pirating is a joy, the ads actually feel like a benefit instead of a punishment, the analytics seem to be aimed at saving me time by highlighting stuff I’ll like instead of gaslighting me into emptying my wallet…
The result is:
I buy lots of games, watch lots of ads — share ads with friends even — go out of my way to give them more analytics data points, and trust their recommendations enough to shell out $2.99 for something on sale after only 10 seconds of research.
Why are other companies not able to follow Steam’s approach?
So, literally the story of the actual Luddites. Or what they attempted to do before capitalists poured a few hundred bullets into them.
Dude gave up his entire life to send a warning to as many people as possible. You think he’s gonna not post further warnings on Twitter?
It doesn’t seem like the ruling says copyright concerns justify overriding a right to anonymity under GDPR, but that the right to anonymity doesn’t exist in the first place.
I think that’s probably a better place to be, because it means they can legislate a right to anonymity.
“Stupid says ‘ban’?”
What if the US had to deploy troops to enforce this?
I mean, could you imagine?
US troops, in the Middle East, fighting against a regime that we propped up, using weapons we gave them?
I mean, what a strange and unprecedented turn of events!
It is the cost of doing business. They just wanna make the rest of us pay it.
It’s only hacking if it’s in a CVE.
Anything else is just sparkling unauthorized access.
Constant Comment