IIRC the French reactors are all nearing their end of service life and’ll be decommissioned soon.
Mastadon - @Devorlon@social.linux.pizza
IIRC the French reactors are all nearing their end of service life and’ll be decommissioned soon.
What definition for piracy are your relying on?
The illegitimate procurement of media.
where did you source it?
My ass.
Does DMCA even have a definition for this?
Can’t help you there, I’m not American.
I’ve not argued any of those points. Just that not watching ads on YouTube is piracy.
In the UK, piracy isn’t a legally defined term, and the way that I would define piracy as the illegitimate procurement of media.
but TOS is often illegal anyway.
Piracy isn’t only a legal thing. It’s just dealt with through the legal system.
I’m not modifying any of the content
Sorry, I was wrong. You are however circumventing YouTube’s playing ads.
I’m a pedantic asshole.
You don’t have permission to modify any of the content YouTube sends you.
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c
Section: Permissions and Restrictions Point 2
circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage, or otherwise interfere with the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that: (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content; or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
Piracy is sharing content that you don’t have the rights to share.
I’d classify watching something on piracysite.com as piracy.
I’d also class bypassing Netflix’s login requirements to watch their catalogue as piracy. But I guess that’s more a semantics thing.
Not saying you shouldn’t block ads, just questioning the OCs comment. If you don’t pay for the service monetarily or through data then imo it’s piracy.
Isn’t it? You’re not paying for a service / product.
Someone was testing a program they made that links Lemmy / Mastadon (ActivityPub) to other services, think threads or Reddit.
When they ran the program it created all the dummy accounts and published it to the Fediverse making it look like a lot of new users joined.
Reading the article, they collect the data necessary to federate with an instance. If you or I were to run our own instance we would have access to the same data.
If they were to do anything with that data that they don’t have permission to do, like selling it. They would be in breach of the GDPR and fined 4% of their global annual income, and as we’ve seen with Apple, it’s not profitable to have two wildly separate versions of your product.
It’s an initiative to stop game companies (EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard etc) from being able to decide if you can play a video game that you’ve bought. The example used is for the video game “The Crew” which was an online-only racing game. After the servers were shutdown by Ubisoft, the game that many people bought became unplayable.
What StopKillingGames wants, is that any company that publishes / develop games provide a way for people who own the game to continue playing it indefinitely. This would most likely come in the form of a game server that could be run by any owner of the game, and shouldn’t be a requirement that publishers / developers run the servers forever as that would be unsustainable.