Conservatives really are doing everything to repeat the Nixon years.

Nixon tried it. Turns out people didn’t like it once they had it and it was switched back.

respect for the user, consistency, customisability,

Customizability, absolutely. But Linux has a distinct lack of respect for users (from a GUI perspective) and consistency. Customizability is frequently in direct conflict with consistency. Different distros have different GUI’s. The apps in the distros use different toolkits for their development which yields wildly inconsistent GUI’s inside the programs.

Saving a file to a folder of your choice

What program are you seeing that?

I use Linux and Windows and don’t see that. I just checked with saving a file in the Windows version of Orca (3d slicer), Save brings up the standard Windows dialog that has all the folders on the left panel and the contents of the currently selected folder on the right panel. It’s virtually identical to the Save dialog box of Orca under Ubuntu right down to dividing local directories on top of the left panel and network share on the bottom left.

That’s the default Save in Windows. A program has to go out of its way to avoid the standard Windows Save dialog box which is the same problem Linux programs can have.

Can you imagine the downvotes and likely bans if someone did the equivalent in a Linux thread?

, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s.

It absolutely did not say that.

17 U.S.C. § 109(a) from 1976 clarified the earlier laws without changing them at all. It even specifically mentions video games. That is if you buy a video game you have the right to resell it (dispose).

Courts have since ruled that the law and 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) don’t apply because you bought a “license”.

But that doesn’t change the law or 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which was even clearer that someone who purchases music or a video game has the right to resell it.

Court rulings aren’t law.

A cheap way to start is noip.com. You can get a domain name for free, you just need to check in every 3 months to say you are still using it. It’s big enough that many routers support it.

After 2 years of checking in every 3 months I paid for their next tier of service where you don’t have to check in and get multiple domains etc. So their free service marketing worked.

The law you linked is 100 years old

Laws don’t expire unless specifically written to expire. Do you not believe in the right to free speech because that law is 250 years old?

Nor was it superceded 50 years ago. The case was in 2012 and wasn’t ruled until 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.

because you’re making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do)

You aren’t necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.

The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn’t necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn’t a law. That’s why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.

Ownership of your person which includes your organs is covered under constitutional rights, not property rights.

people with organ transplants don’t own the organs they bought.

You didn’t buy the organ you got transplanted because federal law prohibits all organ sales.

TIL people with pacemakers don’t own their hearts.

??? A pacemaker is device implanted to maintain regular rhythm. If you purchased one from the manufacturer, you could sell it to someone else.

“Only multi player content”

So content was removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

That a new law was created to say “if it’s on a computer you don’t have rights” doesn’t mean the public should meekly accept being screwed over. It’s the same as the current anti repair laws.

If I don’t let you resell something you bought that’s ownership. I’m not talking about illegal copies. I’m talking about transferring the license to play the content you purchased.

If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that’s not ownership.

How about you buy a house, then when you go to sell it, the builder says you can’t. Or you are living in a house that you bought and 5 years later the builder says, we are taking your house back, here is what you paid for it.

That’s not ownership.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-removes-game-order-of-war-challenge-from-user-libraries/

Why haven’t the Democrats done anything to stop this!

I don’t think you understand how big these data centers are. They are the size of entire cities. A Tesla crash would have the effect of a single car crash in Manhattan.

You didn’t read your own link. From your own Wikipedia link: First game released in 2006. 2 years after Steam.

“the argument isn’t about games”? Then where is the non gaming publisher in the OP gif above?

Maybe you should look up history before downvoting:

https://www.macworld.com/article/181577/ipodgames-2.html

First game on itunes was 2006- 3 years after Steam.

Music companies weren’t selling games.

Itunes didn’t sell games.

Valve started it. Valve invented the “we can violate copyright laws because it’s on a computer”. Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.

It is illegal to stop you from reselling copyrighted work you bought at whatever price you can get. Book publishers tried that over 100 years ago and were smacked down by the Supreme Court and followed up with laws passed by Congress.

GoG, every console, play store, and Apple store take the same cut.

Because they were following Steam. Steam set the standard. The IOS store came 8 years! after steam.

Steam practically invented the idea of monetizing consumer rights for profit. You used to own your games. It is law that copyrighted works can be resold. The specific case was that publishers were trying to restrict reselling copyrighted work for cheap.

That’s exactly the law Valve violates by saying “it’s not a copyrighted work, it’s a steam key.”

Gabe was the original tech bro- profiting from breaking the law by saying “it’s on a computer”

I don’t understand how it works? I saw a video where he took a bite of a banana before the forecast. How does that stop anyone from cutting and pasting one second of him biting the banana into the start of an ai video with a statement “banana” .