• 28 Posts
  • 1.71K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2023

help-circle



  • The first link you sent, that I keep talking about, said in the first paragraph that it is 100 yo and superceded 50 years ago:

    Regarding 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which is what superceded it, the 2010 version does mention computer programs but does not mention games except for coin operated games. It doesn’t grant you the right to copy (which digit transfer does) and more importantly 109(d) explicit says the right doesn’t extend to people who possess the software by means of rental/lease/loan/otherwise without acquiring ownership of it, which is exactly the exemption about selling licenses instead of copies, that these digital stores use to deprive you of ownership. It clearly exempts steam’s whole model.
    Checking the most recent version (2024) leaves this pretty much unchanged.

    I agree with you that this is bad, but that doesn’t make it illegal.
    However we need to be careful that this doesn’t fuck FOSS software, which relies heavily on license enforcement.





  • Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s. I don’t think you’re even reading the sources you send me. Are you just generating responses with ai?

    Again, what law is being broken by steam?
    First sale doctrine does not apply to licenses, it applies to products, and furthermore you cannot transfer a digital product without copying it.

    We can’t just say that they’re breaking the law as were wish it existed rather than how it actually is, but I agree with your goal, that software should be resellable.


  • What law?
    The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you’re making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren’t sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it’s use, and you can’t sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.

    I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.







  • Afaict, nobody is making the argument that you’re refuting.

    There is art that is elevated by being horny and art that is made worse by it. Being horny doesn’t fit this character, and isn’t relevant to the story being told, so it seems like a bad fit. Being a bad fit, the only people this would benefit are creeps who want upskirt shots of whoever, and I don’t think that’s a demographic to cater to at the sacrifice of the more vulnerable demographics that this film is targeting.





  • That’s an unnecessarily rude response. Even in the baking community, it should be fine to ask what goes into their decision to bake bread, or why they choose to bake bread instead of spending their time baking other things instead. Even if he already made up his mind, it’s fine to be curious about the motivations others.

    He didn’t tell you what you can or can’t do, or what you should or shouldn’t do. He didn’t jellyfin is bad or that self hosting in general is bad. He wasn’t rude.

    You say it’s an important life lesson to get that it’s ok for other people to have different tastes and priorities, but it’s also healthy to ask people about those tastes and priorities.