Eh, that would disincentivize long-term updates.
Instead, 5 or 10 years of inactivity should be more than enough leeway.
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.
It’s also possible that they wouldn’t win against Ryujinx. There’s evidence of Yuzu devs sharing roms with each other to test out games, so it’s possible that they settled to avoid discovery.
Paid emulators have existed for ages and have won in US courts before.
This is probably in a legal grey area in the US. The Yuzu case was settled out of court because Nintendo had dirt on the team behind it, so it’s unclear whether a judge would rule that this kind of circumvention is legal.
GitHub has to comply with the DMCA. You wouldn’t have a case against them if you wanted to sue.
Literally every repo that got DMCA’d had an opportunity to fight back, and they chose to cave instead. I don’t see why repositories going down is a reflection of GitHub’s ethics.
If a distributor for Korean movies in the US was the only company that subtitled a movie in Spanish for example, then Netflix would have to make a deal with them to include subtitles for every region. It might be that the distributor themselves may not have the rights to distribute those subtitles outside the US as well.
The point is that even if CD or DVD drives aren’t produced nearly as much, there is still a market for newer drives that still support CDs and DVDs.
They haven’t had any kind of drive for a while now. You know what does though? Game consoles.
Think of the shareholders!
Diner Dash and Bejeweled went hard
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.