Where did I say “oh well, nothing we can do?” You’re literally tying random arguments to my name.

Nobody here made the argument that what is legal is exactly what is fair. Nobody here made the argument that Nintendo being overly litigious is a good thing. The only argument made is that copyright law is flawed because companies abuse it and that lawmakers need to fix it.

I doubt that the Switch 2 needs emulation as it’s very likely to be the successor to the Tegra X1

He never said that creating an emulator was illegal. He said that Nintendo is legally in the clear to do what they did. In Yuzu’s case, Nintendo sued and both parties settled, and they reached an “agreement” with Ryujinx to take down its emulator.

As far as I’m aware, the Yuzu case isn’t settled law as it calls into question whether the use of dumped keys to “bypass” copy protections is legal under the DMCA. This question isn’t about emulation, even if it’s a step required for emulation to be possible.

Since there are many issues with copyright law right now, corporations have a free pass to bully people in a multitude of ways, and the Yuzu lawsuit and Ryujinx “agreement” are just new ways of doing the same thing. All OP is saying is that lawmakers need to re-create copyright and IP laws to make them more fair and make sense so that content creators and/or homebrew devs and/or fangame creators and/or emulator devs can do their work with a far less shaky legal foundation.

As someone with few USBs available, Ventoy takes me 2 minutes to flash, several minutes to copy a set of ISOs, and then any time I need it, it takes 0 minutes to have a working USB with some arbitrary ISO. Sure, it’s not up to date, but I don’t need it to be if I need to recover an install or use some random tool.

I don’t think you fully understand right to repair.

Companies (most egregiously Apple, but Samsung, Microsoft, and other tech, farming, and medical companies as well) have been actively introducing barriers to self or third-party repairs for decades. Apple serializes their displays on iPhones, so if you were to swap the screen on an iPhone without Apple’s authorization or without specific hardware, your iPhone disables specific features on your new screen, even if it’s a genuine Apple part. Apple also has incredibly unfair and invasive contracts with their authorized service providers such that they have to provide a slower return window than Apple’s own service centers. Furthermore, Apple et al. don’t sell every part needed to fix phones, and even when they do sell parts, they are often sold as packages or bundles that make the parts unnecessarily expensive.

To be clear, it’s rare for companies to ban third-party repairs outright. However, the vast majority of device makers artificially limit who can buy spare parts and who can fix their devices via software, by tight supply chain control, lawsuits, or getting governments to seize the few parts that could be obtained. This means that most third-party stores can’t compete with manufacturers because they can’t get genuine parts without becoming “authorized”, and by becoming authorized, they can’t provide a quality service.

You’re ignoring the fact that it’s nearly impossible to implement this right now. Big pharma and numerous politicians want to keep the status quo for as long as possible. By the time we have more affordable medicine, numerous people would have suffered greatly or died because they couldn’t access the medicine they need. Having solutions that don’t require an entire rework of the healthcare industry is necessary so that we can save as many lives as possible.

As a buyer, I’ve had to fight hard to get items returned to scammy sellers.

It’s for a completely different purpose. This is more close to AirDrop

When most people say “free software”, they’re talking about software that’s free as in freedom. Using it otherwise just causes unnecessary confusion.

If by “most people” you mean the general population, you are absolutely wrong. Hell, even software devs (at least in the US) would fight with you unless they themselves are interested in FOSS.

When the average Joe pays nothing for an item that they want, regardless of whether that item can be modified, they will say that the item is free. To your average Joe, software is yet another item.

It wouldn’t be limited to community releases, though. Other companies could poach the source code for themselves, and I doubt that’s something easy to regulate.

Eh, that would disincentivize long-term updates.

Instead, 5 or 10 years of inactivity should be more than enough leeway.

Disagree in some cases. A good chunk of YouTubers make good use of their “no new effort” earnings by reinvesting it into their channel. The end result is either better content or more of it

Not OP, but the tools provided by my OEM of choice are already really good, so it’s something I’m glad exists but isn’t useful to me.

I don’t know; AFAIK, Reddit successfully argued that they own Wallstreetbets’ trademarks in court. That might void all of these licenses depending on the ToS of the instance being used.

Reasonable control in the legal sense does matter though. Right now, a majority of creatives don’t own their IP in the legal sense, and they can’t stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result. In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they’d also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

It’s really important to know that the vast majority of people aren’t going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it’s even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

I already understand the point of the video. I’m saying that the point of the video doesn’t reflect the wishes and wills of all artists. If someone pours their heart and soul into something, they should have reasonable control over how that something is used by other people. The last thing we want is to demotivate those artists from making great works.

I don’t agree with that video, and I’m sure that a good chunk of talented creators wouldn’t appreciate losing control of their own works. Copyright needs to be rewritten, but abolished is quite a huge overcorrection

The difference between pirates and drug dealers is that the former tends to need some level of tech literacy.

They’re probably just a kid who can’t easily afford games.

They convinced GitHub to send takedown notices, which can be appealed. They’re legally required to do this under the DMCA.