It is, but as I've seen pointed out religion is put on the list of protected classes because without it you could very easily end up with a situation where which religion(especially 'none') you are a member is treated as acceptable grounds for discrimination.
That said I don't think that should ever be treated as grounds for immunity from consequences, so if for example a religion taught that dark skin was a sign of sin that would be stupid but not illegal, but if it was used as grounds to bar dark skinned people from jobs that shouldn't be given a pass just because it's religiously motivated.
Hey great, legislators are proposing regulations to crack down on companies that might use their power to abuse the public, I'm sure they'll be introducing regulations and laws to reign in the likes of Comcast and Verizon any day now for the same reason, no?
As I've noted before it would be a whole lot easier to believe that efforts such as this were being made in good faith if the arguments were turned on other industries for once, but as it is the only thing this looks like is a cheap PR stunt for gullible fools and/or punishment for tech companies for not doing what politicians want them to.
While I'm certainly not a big fan of the government spying on people in such a manner I find it just a titch hard to muster any sympathy when the person so spied on was all for the public having their communications rooted through.
“We are surprised and disappointed by this lawsuit which represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Roblox platform operates, and will defend Roblox vigorously as we work to achieve a fair resolution,” continued Roblox’s statement.
You are surprised and disappointed that a pack of parasites from an industry that has shown that it is willing to wield the law as a weapon to extort and control any platform that catches their eye is acting exactly in that manner? I really don't know what to tell you other than welcome to the real world, I hope that rock you've been camped out under your entire life was comfy because it's rather less so out here.
As always when someone plays the 'lawful content' card it's worthwhile to remind people what that includes. Being racist and/or sexist is lawful, advocating that gays should be tortured until they 'give up their sinful ways' is legal, opining that the nazis had some really great ideas and it was a shame that they were prevented from really doing something about those filthy jews is also legal...
Someone trying to force sites to host all 'lawful content' is someone trying to prevent sites from doing anything about the above content and more, and as such they should be forced to either own their own position regarding said content or show what craven cowards they are as they slink away and try to avoid overtly doing so.
(Flipping the tables a bit since I imagine a good number of people among that pack of scum would see no problem with the above arguing that the romans had the right idea in throwing christians to the lions is legal, supporting the idea that those that would overthrow a government because they don't like the result don't deserve to be citizens or have any rights under the system they tried to destroy is legal, the idea that anyone who votes republican are deluded fools at best and should be constantly mocked and belittled until they smarten up, also legal. Somehow I doubt that those that might be in favor of the first set would be quite as happy if this set was also given legal protection and forbidden from being moderated.)
It makes sense that when you share a message with someone else you lose the ability to prohibit them from sharing it in turn but the idea that evidence illegally gathered can still be used is really not something that courts should be accepting or encouraging as it makes a complete mockery of the law since breaking it carries no penalty so long as you're doing it for 'offical' reasons and as a result such an argument if anything encourages breaking the law since illegal actions have nothing but positives.
Not only doesn't it exist I'd argue you don't want it to, because trying to be strictly neutral would require giving all views equal treatment when they might really not be('This side says vaccines are safe, this side says they're being used to inject the mark of the beast, we'll let the readers decide').
It's the ultimate irony of DRM in that for all the cries of 'Piracy!' and how it's needed to deal with those filthy copyright infringers the only people that are really screwed over by DRM are the paying customers.
Then again, at least we knew the Trump DOJ was being overseen by bigots and bullshitters from the get-go.
If defending federally funded bigots' 'right' to discriminate is what they're going to start out with it seems the DOJ doesn't see any reason to change that and are still run by bigots and bullshitters.
Notably, Denuvo's marketing material now reflects the emphasis on the initial release window, where Denvuo claims its platform can protect a game for 14 days after launch, during which publishers earn "59% of their revenue from their new title."
Given a quick search of the company on TD resulted in a plethora of stories about how quickly Denuvo's malicious code has been gutted from games(Hitman 2's version was cracked three days before the official launch) pretty sure even claiming two weeks is going to be wildly optimistic, and that's before taking into account the fact that giving a timeline like that is just going to be seen as a challenge for all the cracking individuals/groups out there looking to see who can shave that number down the most.
That aside there is something just so very funny about how desperate they've gotten at this point, where it's simply taken as a given that their product will be cracked in short order and they're stuck trying to argue that it will at least 'protect' a game for a few days at least.
If libraries had not already been a well established institution there is no way in hell they would have ever been allowed to be created in the modern day.
'A place buys a book once and lets an endless stream of people read it without each and every one of them paying the purchase price again?! That is nothing less than theft, an assault on the very concept of authorship and the ability for authors to make a living!'
It's amazing how quickly they can shift from 'regulations are satan's edicts!' when it comes to companies they like to 'companies need to be strictly regulated to ensure they are acting responsibly!' when it comes to companies they don't care for...
That's the funny part of him breaking out that argument because the market has indeed decided and it's decided that the majority of people aren't interested in the garbage his side wallows in which is why they keep trying to force their way onto platforms that a majority of people have decided to use because they keep throwing assholes out.
And again more proof that for all the whining that he was 'Censored!' he sure seemed to be able to get his speech out just fine, all that took a hit was how many people cared to listen.
If by 'vaccine segregation' they mean that society is 'segregating' unvaccinated people by keeping away from them and making clear that they're not welcome in social gatherings even proof that it's real is missing the main point, that of demonstrating that that's a bad thing.
People have a right to be stupid, even to the point that it puts their health and/or life at risk but that right does not include the right to put the health and lives of those around them at risk against the wishes of those people, and in the case of vaccination during a pandemic that's killed over half a million people in america alone society has a very good reason to not want to associate with those that refuse to get a gorram shot to drastically lower that risk.
Well that had to have been disappointing for the more gung-ho members of the company(first and foremost the bounty-setting CEO), they got caught out before their plans were able to come to fruition and it turned out that people didn't in fact want another group of people running around playing cops and robbers no matter how much the company clearly really wanted to do so.
How terrible, the anti-public and anti-creator law is under 'assault', by which I can only assume that they mean it might possibly maybe be scaled back for once so that it actually serves the public as it was supposed to because while that's not likely it's still vastly more likely than any real 'attack' on copyright.
Truly copyright maximalists have it just so very hard these days.
Re: Re: Re: 4-chan question...
Given who comprises their voter base these days I can't imagine that would be too much of a change.
Re: 4-chan question...
Less 'enable' and more 'force' as sites won't be able to prevent every platform from turning into a 4chan clone with a law like this on the books.
'Non-christians/jews/muslims need not apply'
It is, but as I've seen pointed out religion is put on the list of protected classes because without it you could very easily end up with a situation where which religion(especially 'none') you are a member is treated as acceptable grounds for discrimination.
That said I don't think that should ever be treated as grounds for immunity from consequences, so if for example a religion taught that dark skin was a sign of sin that would be stupid but not illegal, but if it was used as grounds to bar dark skinned people from jobs that shouldn't be given a pass just because it's religiously motivated.
'Monopolies are bad! .. for these specific companies.'
Hey great, legislators are proposing regulations to crack down on companies that might use their power to abuse the public, I'm sure they'll be introducing regulations and laws to reign in the likes of Comcast and Verizon any day now for the same reason, no?
As I've noted before it would be a whole lot easier to believe that efforts such as this were being made in good faith if the arguments were turned on other industries for once, but as it is the only thing this looks like is a cheap PR stunt for gullible fools and/or punishment for tech companies for not doing what politicians want them to.
'I didn't think they'd try to eat MY face!'
While I'm certainly not a big fan of the government spying on people in such a manner I find it just a titch hard to muster any sympathy when the person so spied on was all for the public having their communications rooted through.
'Also why didn't anyone tell us water was wet?!'
“We are surprised and disappointed by this lawsuit which represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Roblox platform operates, and will defend Roblox vigorously as we work to achieve a fair resolution,” continued Roblox’s statement.
You are surprised and disappointed that a pack of parasites from an industry that has shown that it is willing to wield the law as a weapon to extort and control any platform that catches their eye is acting exactly in that manner? I really don't know what to tell you other than welcome to the real world, I hope that rock you've been camped out under your entire life was comfy because it's rather less so out here.
'You're either supporting all that or doing so as a coward'
As always when someone plays the 'lawful content' card it's worthwhile to remind people what that includes. Being racist and/or sexist is lawful, advocating that gays should be tortured until they 'give up their sinful ways' is legal, opining that the nazis had some really great ideas and it was a shame that they were prevented from really doing something about those filthy jews is also legal...
Someone trying to force sites to host all 'lawful content' is someone trying to prevent sites from doing anything about the above content and more, and as such they should be forced to either own their own position regarding said content or show what craven cowards they are as they slink away and try to avoid overtly doing so.
(Flipping the tables a bit since I imagine a good number of people among that pack of scum would see no problem with the above arguing that the romans had the right idea in throwing christians to the lions is legal, supporting the idea that those that would overthrow a government because they don't like the result don't deserve to be citizens or have any rights under the system they tried to destroy is legal, the idea that anyone who votes republican are deluded fools at best and should be constantly mocked and belittled until they smarten up, also legal. Somehow I doubt that those that might be in favor of the first set would be quite as happy if this set was also given legal protection and forbidden from being moderated.)
Mostly sensible
It makes sense that when you share a message with someone else you lose the ability to prohibit them from sharing it in turn but the idea that evidence illegally gathered can still be used is really not something that courts should be accepting or encouraging as it makes a complete mockery of the law since breaking it carries no penalty so long as you're doing it for 'offical' reasons and as a result such an argument if anything encourages breaking the law since illegal actions have nothing but positives.
Re:
Not only doesn't it exist I'd argue you don't want it to, because trying to be strictly neutral would require giving all views equal treatment when they might really not be('This side says vaccines are safe, this side says they're being used to inject the mark of the beast, we'll let the readers decide').
Re: Re: And the sad reality is that some still fall for this sna
It's the ultimate irony of DRM in that for all the cries of 'Piracy!' and how it's needed to deal with those filthy copyright infringers the only people that are really screwed over by DRM are the paying customers.
Re:
Then again, at least we knew the Trump DOJ was being overseen by bigots and bullshitters from the get-go.
If defending federally funded bigots' 'right' to discriminate is what they're going to start out with it seems the DOJ doesn't see any reason to change that and are still run by bigots and bullshitters.
Go ahead, poke that beehive Denuvo...
Notably, Denuvo's marketing material now reflects the emphasis on the initial release window, where Denvuo claims its platform can protect a game for 14 days after launch, during which publishers earn "59% of their revenue from their new title."
Given a quick search of the company on TD resulted in a plethora of stories about how quickly Denuvo's malicious code has been gutted from games(Hitman 2's version was cracked three days before the official launch) pretty sure even claiming two weeks is going to be wildly optimistic, and that's before taking into account the fact that giving a timeline like that is just going to be seen as a challenge for all the cracking individuals/groups out there looking to see who can shave that number down the most.
That aside there is something just so very funny about how desperate they've gotten at this point, where it's simply taken as a given that their product will be cracked in short order and they're stuck trying to argue that it will at least 'protect' a game for a few days at least.
Re: Re: Translating Pallante's words
If libraries had not already been a well established institution there is no way in hell they would have ever been allowed to be created in the modern day.
'A place buys a book once and lets an endless stream of people read it without each and every one of them paying the purchase price again?! That is nothing less than theft, an assault on the very concept of authorship and the ability for authors to make a living!'
Re:
It's amazing how quickly they can shift from 'regulations are satan's edicts!' when it comes to companies they like to 'companies need to be strictly regulated to ensure they are acting responsibly!' when it comes to companies they don't care for...
(untitled comment)
Sounds like the free market decided.
That's the funny part of him breaking out that argument because the market has indeed decided and it's decided that the majority of people aren't interested in the garbage his side wallows in which is why they keep trying to force their way onto platforms that a majority of people have decided to use because they keep throwing assholes out.
(untitled comment)
And again more proof that for all the whining that he was 'Censored!' he sure seemed to be able to get his speech out just fine, all that took a hit was how many people cared to listen.
Re: Re:
If by 'vaccine segregation' they mean that society is 'segregating' unvaccinated people by keeping away from them and making clear that they're not welcome in social gatherings even proof that it's real is missing the main point, that of demonstrating that that's a bad thing.
People have a right to be stupid, even to the point that it puts their health and/or life at risk but that right does not include the right to put the health and lives of those around them at risk against the wishes of those people, and in the case of vaccination during a pandemic that's killed over half a million people in america alone society has a very good reason to not want to associate with those that refuse to get a gorram shot to drastically lower that risk.
'We didn't want those grapes anyway...'
Well that had to have been disappointing for the more gung-ho members of the company(first and foremost the bounty-setting CEO), they got caught out before their plans were able to come to fruition and it turned out that people didn't in fact want another group of people running around playing cops and robbers no matter how much the company clearly really wanted to do so.
'Oh, you know...'
Instead, google appears to refuse to consider information from some sources that are important to the user, but google dislikes.
Which 'sources' would those happen to be, and please, be specific.
That's handy, the micro-violin is still out
How terrible, the anti-public and anti-creator law is under 'assault', by which I can only assume that they mean it might possibly maybe be scaled back for once so that it actually serves the public as it was supposed to because while that's not likely it's still vastly more likely than any real 'attack' on copyright.
Truly copyright maximalists have it just so very hard these days.
More comments from That One Guy >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by That One Guy.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt