Podcasts are yet one more thing that ads have more or less ruined for me. I rarely listen to them due to the sponsorships. It is like trying to watch YouTube on my TV through the YouTube app instead of the Smarttube app.

Laws and rules such as these really puts a light on how local politicians think technology works vs how it actually works.

They seem to have a knack for taking something and making it palatable for the masses when it comes to UI and such. I don’t agree with a lot of it, but then again I am not “the masses” in the computing demographics.

The only sane thing to do in response to this is the same thing that SHOULD have been done when Paramount went all sue happy on folks making unofficial Star Trek stuff.

Creators should stop making things related to their works and consumers should stop consuming and giving Paramount money for the official works.

The lesson being if the rights holder for something wants to keep it all to themselves, let them, forget it exists and starve it out of profitable existence. Spend the time and money with content, creators, and consumers that don’t believe sucking up ever dime that’s not nailed down is, or should be, the ultimate goal.

More like senators are trying to make another show trial of BS they really have no plans to do anything about, and probably shouldn’t be getting in the middle of, to make it seem like they are being productive in some way.

Don’t forget the “bloodletting”. Got to get that bad blood out along with the head spirits.

I have come to rather like Downcast on iOS myself. Should check it out if you never have.

Sundar probably does not use Google Drive. He is probably all Apple in his day to day life like most executives.

Keeping the money and yanking back the content it was used to purchase will surely entice those people to sign up for that Max/Discovery+ subscription.

Only an out of touch corporate stooge would see a logical through line there.

Just remember to not pay for the subscription and they will eventually stop this particular nonsense.

Hey, mine loves to talk up her blue ball cure.

Wow, maybe these things are more human than I thought.

“Probably” being the operative word there. The MPAA could still sue you into third world poverty to prove a point even if you end up winning the case.

In my opinion the wrong thing is getting the focus because legally Sony nor WB stole from anyone in the legal sense. I know it is unethical, but unfortunately that is not a winning argument in the business or legal worlds. The winning thing to do here is popularize the notion that “buying” from these services is not really buying and no one should do it. While at the same time popularizing the idea that any content tied to such a model is not worth consuming.

By pirating it it is just proving there is some value in these products even with all of the BS the rights holders tie them down with. The message needs to be sent in a way executives and lawyers understand that when you make your product customer hostile to obtain legally you make that product effectively worthless and the customer will go elsewhere for their entertainment. Including DRM has to cost them more than they stand to lose from those that will pirate it anyway. Because money is all executives and lawyers understand.

This would also effectively create a demand for smaller projects not tied down with all of that DRM shit that maybe some enterprising people would start to fill.

In the US, he is still breaking the law ripping discs. It is against the DMCA to circumvent the DRM on the discs. So he is really just pirating by a different means as far as the industry is concerned.

He is far less likely to get caught doing it that way though.

Yep. These arguments get at a problem I have with a lot of the piracy community. Which is not paying for the movie, but still watching it just shows the rights holders that there is a demand for the product.

If people want the DRM BS to end it would be far more effective to not pay for it AND not watch it. Companies would do a rethink surprisingly fast if money and engagement with their products fell off a cliff.

But that requires sacrifice and inconvenience to the consumer, and consumers have a pathetic amount of resolve when it comes to doing something uncomfortable now for a better outcome later.

I thought death would be happy with this roll of the dice. I thought he had been after Kissinger or McConnell for years now.

Guess Gitlab is about to get a shot in the arm from india.

Sadly some people won’t get the message until Plex starts providing their movie streaming habits on request to the RIAA for lawsuits.

Edit: I meant MPAA, not RIAA (though they are probably giving it to them as well).

Good on the Uruguayan Parliament. For profit companies understand one thing, money. If enough people would understand this and be willing to deal with some inconvenience, companies like Spotify would come around surprisingly fast.