It does nothing to dissuade content gatekeepers from employing restrictive DRM on their sites.
Anti-DRM would be avoiding anything that gives money to those that employ DRM to incentivize the removal of the DRM. Frankly, flat out piracy (streaming ripped content) is more likely to result in the removal of DRM than making it appear that the DRM is working well for the provider.
Regarding point 1, recent judicial decisions on scraping seemed to have entrenched it as legal.
On two, it seems like they are concerned with trademark to me. A workaround could be making a website that parses and displays Twitter content and call it something else. Then, in an app, make no mention of Twitter and only the website.
That’s because San Francisco is expensive. A sandwich with no sides at many places downtown is more than $10 and I’m pretty sure it’s not organized shoplifting…
Until the plastic results in loss of sales because people don’t want to bother, we probably won’t see it reversed. The cost is sunk. Why wouldn’t they leave it, even if ineffective, as long as it doesn’t cost them anything?
Theres that kind of growth, and then the expectation that you grow into every conceivable vertical to expand more rapidly or support stock prices for an otherwise stagnant business.
Yea. That’s the part that is ripped. Making a new photo sharing app shouldn’t be controversial.
I like Pixelfed, but it was naive to rip the filter names and think that was somehow ok. It was also a totally unnecessary thing to copy. An imitation filter could be called anything and people will be able to tell (assuming you did a good enough job imitating).
No commuters? What city are you referring to? In SF, Muni is packed along my commute to the city. Probably there’s not as much commuting, but there’s certainly quite a bit.
Also, more dense housing actually usually means less commuting. That’s one of the reasons I generally support it. People living closer to work means less commute time resulting in less carbon as well.
I think l the reason is that it means that they don’t trust or don’t want their users to know what they are doing on your machine. To me, that is already a malicious premise. Even if they aren’t trying to exfiltrate my data or anything.
Exactly. Big pint media companies like those you mentioned and New Yorker put out plenty of articles in spite of legal threats. They have legal teams that can tell them if the threats are founded or not and generally have a good track record of defending their positions.
What someone other than these media groups may do is make a “bold claim” that may be true but not demonstrably so. Something like that may shy a big company away from casting the first stone and instead to report on someone else’s claim as an allegation.
I want an open and private platform. Google may let me sideload apps, but the operating system is hostile to data privacy. For me, an iPhone that I can install other apps on is the best alternative apart from going to a GNU/Linux phone.
Additionally, it’s a benefit that users can now install any apps that Apple refuses to allow.
I’ve had one on my keychain for at least 5 years now with no issues. It would have been longer but I did switch to a USB-C key two years ago. I kept the old one enrolled as my backup key.
I use a password manager, but my Yubikey has all my 2FA. Including TOTP.
> $1000 right away before the item even went back.
They don’t do this anymore. I recently bought a hard drive and found the anti static bag was opened. When I returned it Amazon made it clear I would not get a refund until it was back at the warehouse. I dropped it at a Whole Foods return desk and got my refund days later.
It does nothing to dissuade content gatekeepers from employing restrictive DRM on their sites.
Anti-DRM would be avoiding anything that gives money to those that employ DRM to incentivize the removal of the DRM. Frankly, flat out piracy (streaming ripped content) is more likely to result in the removal of DRM than making it appear that the DRM is working well for the provider.