[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=wmlr

Case precedent and law proves you incorrect. Fixed copies of digital assets have repeatedly been proven to be capable of being "owned". There is no requirement that an item be a physical, tangible good in order to be owned. I don't know where you're getting your information (because you refuse to cite it), but it's incorrect.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago

You're confusing ownership of media with ownership of copyright. I'm not suggesting that I can buy an mp3 and reshare it (or the same for an ebook), that's a violation of copyright. I've never suggested that buying them lets me remove DRM, re-share, etc. It's a strawman argument that you and conciselyverbose seem very attached to, but not an argument I'm making.

Ownership is not strictly limited to physical items, and I'm very curious why people think it is. There's significant outstanding case law precedent that proves that ownership can apply to digital files as well.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 14 points 7 months ago

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you saying it over and over and offering no proof or corroborating evidence for your claims isn't furthering the discussion. I've provided two examples of cases where purchasing a file constitutes ownership and not a license, one where purchasing an MP3 constitutes full ownership of the MP3 via the terms of service, and one where purchasing an eBook constitutes full ownership of the ebook. According to you this is impossible, but I've provided two clear examples where it is, in fact, possible.

I am interested in hearing why you believe what you believe and what evidence you can present that supports your beliefs, but if all you can do is restate that you say it's x/y/z without any legal standing it and without anything that explains how the terms of service I provided are incorrect or unenforcable (e.g., can you provide me any previous situation in case law where terms of service expressly disclose an mp3 or ebook purchase as a merchandise transaction, but then treat as a revocable license?), I'm not sure where we can go from here. I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion but I'm not here to take someone's word without any corroborating evidence.

I think that a lot of people think what you think, and I think a lot of people think that because the majority of places online only allow purchases as licenses, but just because 85% or 90% of places you go online sell you a license to an mp3 or an ebook doesn't mean that other places don't exist where you can buy the mp3 or ebook outright. Further, I've done a lot of digging and I cannot find any case law that supports your claim that it's not possible to "own" a file. Authors own manuscripts they write on their computer and can seek civil or criminal penalties when those files are stolen, musicians own the raw files they make of their music and can do the same, etc.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In my opinion this is flawed logic. Not voting doesn't accomplish any of the things you want, on the contrary it plays into goals of parties because they want voter apathy -- the less people voting the easier it is for an unpopular candidate to win. I'm definitely not voting for someone I like, I'm voting against the person I think will destroy democracy (and I similarly hate that this is the set of options we are given -- no one would have picked these candidates).

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago

Are you kidding? On the contrary, Carlson has been proven to be the perfect puppet, he let Putin show up and say whatever the fuck he wanted completely unchecked. Carlson's now on Putin's Christmas list. This isn't the last we're going to hear of their friendship.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

Very much this. A great many of us in our early 40s had access to pornography from BBSes or early internet and it didn't seem to fuck us up. Why are we trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist?

Legal sexual gratification between two consenting adults (even if some may find the way they achieve gratification taboo), so long as it's not illegal, should not be shamed or denied.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

If anyone has watched the last 8-12 years, they'd realize polls exist solely to suck people into a false sense of security to manipulate the vote.

Ignore the fucking polls. GO VOTE. Vote in your local elections. Vote in the primaries. Vote in national elections. Polls are completely and utterly bullshit, just ignore them and GO VOTE.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

It doesn't actually, the law is written specifically to disallow people from boycotting companies that destroy the environment, hate LGBTQ, actively promote anti-LGBTQ ideals, etc., but it DOESN'T stop the alternate -- the right can still boycott people who support LGBTQ rights, people who support working to fight climate change, etc. Just another one-sided law attempting to illegalize entirely legal business decisions by the left while allowing the right to continue saying it's OK to deny people wedding cakes if you hate the gays.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I've been playing GW2 since beta -- heck, I've been playing Guild Wars since the original game's beta, I am a sucker for a good MMO that isn't pay-per-month. I still remember the end of the original Guild Wars beta when meteors started falling down killing everyone in Ascalon. My wife isn't quite as interested in MMO-esque experiences, she more likes the couch co-op style (we played D3 until Paragon 950+ on PS4 Pro and play D4 on PS5), so I haven't been able to get her playing it yet -- but I'll keep trying!

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I gave them a crap review in the Android app store because of it -- I have absolutely no need for my lights to be able to be controlled over the internet outside of my house, and I don't want the feature nor do I want my hue bulbs connected via any stupid cloud link so they COULD be managed over the internet outside of my house. Their response was "as we add new features, so too do we add new security features to protect the platform and that justifies us requiring you to have a login and make your devices controllable via the cloud". Uh huh.

I've set the Android app to never automatically update in the future and I'm really hopeful that I can avoid this garbage requirement by doing so, but I'm sure they've thought of it and I'm going to end up having to move to 3rd party apps to control them eventually.

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Agreed, between the exceptionally slow indexing speed and the near arcane witchcraft required to get it to appropriately use hardware transcoding (honestly I've just given up -- everything says it should work and I've tried like 15 different things people say fixes it but it always just crashes the transcoder for me, heh), Plex's ease of use and quality of life just seems so much higher. I really want to like JellyFin!

[-] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Agreed -- not only do I think OP misunderstood Louis's point (if you have the means to help and the opportunity to help, you should help), their post also doesn't make clear that the comments being cited and quoted in it weren't actually said by Louis during the video (or said by him on the channel), but were comments made on the YouTube video by people completely unrelated to him.

It seems easy to read the post and mis-attribute the quotes to Louis based on how it is written, but he didn't actually say any of those things.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

n1ckn4m3

joined 1 year ago