I don’t think preservation is an important argument. If I own an AppleTV, and I purchase a movie through their service, why should it be illegal for me to export that movie to watch on a different device? I own the hardware and the data, why would any law even care at that point?
Obviously piracy should be illegal, but I just don’t see any argument against emulation even if it is current.
You don't own the data, just a temporary right to use it.
Of course it's completely bonkers and the result of massive corporations bribing governments to limit our freedom.
As long as I don't sign a contract with an entity I should be able to do anything I want with bytes. Once I enter into an agreement not to share some data I received then I should be punishable - but no shortcuts, sue everyone in court with a due process and lawyer fees.
Copyright and patents are the most retarded and culture damaging thing I've seen in my lifetime
Quite a pithy phrase that has been popular lately but piracy advocates have always claimed that piracy isn't stealing, regardless of whether or not "buying is owning" so I don't think the two are related.
> You don't own the data, just a temporary right to use it.
Agreed, bonkers. You didn't 'own the data' when it was a VCR recording a broadcast TV show or movie, but now it's all "but they broke our ROT13-super-crypto, throw the book at 'em".
Pretty sure the TOS of AppleTV prohibits exporting the movie - you have a limited license to view it only under the circumstances Apple dictates, in partnership with everyone Apple has deals with. If you want to be able to watch it on other devices, you need to purchase a limited perpetual license in the form of a DVD/bluray.
Now, of course, this depends on the movie having a physical release (which is becoming a bit of a rarity these days), but still, the MPAA has made sure to write ironclad contracts to prohibit watching streamed content the way you want.
For this reason, most of the major studios are members of Movies Anywhere, which allows you to access movies purchased at any (participating) storefront on any participating VOD service. Amazon, Fandango, Vudu, Disney, are participants.
It's generally not, because you can run an OS on a PS5 that can then run the game, and the DMCA allows for this (with some limitations) because, and this is a very important point: there is generally no DRM-hacking required. But...if DRM hacking is required to get a PC game to work on a PS5, it's illegal to do so under the DMCA. (Note: DRM is defined very broadly for DMCA purposes.)
Dolphin does require a bit of DRM hacking, but Dolphin (arguably) falls under one of the DCMA exceptions for archival use purposes. This is the second important point: the Dolphin emulates a system which has not been on sale for a decade. It's still possible* to use it for general piracy instead of archival access, but the archival use trumps the piracy concern. (It would be different though if the Dolphin developers started offering Dolphin on a commercial basis.)
But Yuzu is a commercial offering, for a console that is still on sale, and its use requires DRM hacking. So it's got 3 fatal flaws.
The only surprise is that Nintendo let it live as long as it has. You can bet they won't make that mistake again with their next console.
> ...and this is a very important point: there is generally no DRM-hacking required. But...if DRM hacking is required to get a PC game to work on a PS5, it's illegal to do so under the DMCA. (Note: DRM is defined very broadly for DMCA purposes.)
Wouldn't Steam, MSTF store, Epic, etc. all count as DRM? Regardless, it's more of a philosophical argument than a legal argument. If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.
Wouldn't Steam, MSTF store, Epic, etc. all count as DRM?
They could, which is why I was careful to point out that you can install an OS on your PS5, on which you can then run (some) games on it without having to circumvent DRM.
If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.
Because U.S. (and EU) law doesn't have any exceptions that would cover that use, since the Switch is still being actively sold on the market today. (And as noted elsewhere, this is a large part of why SNES, N64, and Gamecube emulators haven't been targeted by Nintendo: the machines are no longer sold and so emulation allows for archival use/access to games on those platforms. This is generally a permitted use.)
As far as I'm aware, the DMCA doesn't have any sort of exception for archival, but it does have one for software interoperability, which emulators definitely are, regardless of how current the hardware being emulated is.
A single screen that is much larger than a MacBook screen, that is the advantage. And the connection dance is really just...tapping the connect button?
But with the same "resolution" such that you can't fit any more content on it and with much worse density.
Why would I actually want that? You've been able to do this for decades by hooking a TV up to your laptop and while that certainly has space challenges that limit the number of people that'll try it, it's not like tech bloggers were flocking to hook up 65" TVs to their macs and lovingly wax poetic about the productivity gains, either.
The virtual resolution is adjustable and you can fit a lot more contents on the screen than you can with a real monitor. It basically allows one more setting past the maximum “more space” mode you normally get from macOS. It does render a little bit blurry, though, if you crank up the virtual resolution to the max.
The difference between owning a billion dollar company and the deduction from donating a billion dollar company is pretty huge. Donating the company was certainly not a financial benefit for the family in any way.
If you use YouTube a lot, paying for no ads is a no brainer. I pay for YT premium, Apple News+, NYT, Kagi, etc. If you watch just a few videos a month, the price is just not worth it and there is no per-block pricing. Same goes for paid articles - I would have liked to read a few articles from TheInformation about OpenAI but there is no way I’d buy a subscription.
1. He tried to not buy Twitter very hard and OpenAI’s new board member forced his hand
2. It hasn’t been a good financial decision if the banks and X’s own valuation cuts are anything to go by.
3. If his purpose wasn’t to make money…all of these tweets would have absolutely been allowed before Elon bought the company. He didn’t affect any relevance changes here.
Why would one person owning something so important be better than being publicly owned? I don’t understand the logic.
> Why would one person owning something so important be better than being publicly owned?
Usually publicly owned things end up being controlled by someone: a CEO, a main investor, a crooked board, a government, a shady governmental organization. At least with Elon owning X, things are a little more transparent, he’s rather candid where he stands.
To be clear, it looks like there are 40+ DC fast chargers within 50 miles of this location, which seems to be Hollister Hills in CA. Hard to count because it is close to San Jose.
No offense, but it isn't hard to look up how people live in cities and countries with good transit infrastructure. A good starting place might be Netherlands (biking infrastructure coupled with buses and trains) or Switzerland (massive rail network). Here is a wiki page with more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share
Public transit in almost every US city is terrible. It isn't hard to see why someone with means would rather call an Uber than wait 15 minutes for the next bus to show up. Public transit can certainly be improved while Uber exists, just look towards many major international cities for examples.
Obviously piracy should be illegal, but I just don’t see any argument against emulation even if it is current.