If the US only awarded actual damages like most of the rest of the world, instead of inflated punitive damages, then this would pretty much be a non-issue. Rightsholders in the US see targeting copyright infringement as a source of income, not a necessary indemnity.

It’s one of the OG ones, ass-car: https://xkcd.com/37/

My favourite is Wymondham. (Like the blowy kind,) Wind-um.

Also, fuck Worcester sauce.

I think that’s standard with food. When you first encounter it, the body’s normal reaction is “WTF is this?! It’s going to kill me!!”, then the second time it’s more like “Hmmm I don’t know about this, but it didn’t kil me last time”. Then eventually you learn to like the food.

Meanwhile, many allergies are not actually caused by the thing you reacted to, but to something else. Your body just associates the bad effect with something that else alongisde it. For example, a seafood allergy can develop after eating bad seafood - but it doesn’t happen until after. The time you eat bad seafood will be largely uneventful, maybe you have a bit of a dodgy poo, but then the next time you eat seafood you will have a bad allergic reaction. Your body detected the harmful substance that came with the bad seafood, then associates the harm with all seafood, such that all seafood is then rejected.

Defendant has engaged in “crowdsourcing” schemes, such as a scheme where he solicits members of the public to “donate” to his online community

Ah OK then, money was involved.

Yes but the reddit mod James Williams aka Archbox didn’t do any of that. He ran a subreddit and also apparently some “stores” where you download games for free directly to your Switch. This is a major outlier, all the previous cases have only been triggered when money got involved.

Nintendo are trying to push for further precedent here and make things worse for consumers.

All software from torrent sites should be treated with a wary eye.

If you want lemmy to work well, speak with /u/sunaurus@lemm.ee, he’ll sort you out. Dude is a legend and runs the best instance, IMO, but is always willing to help other instances.

Yeah ditto :( but Jenny Nicholson released a 4 hour video on the Star Wars Hotel just recently.

https://youtu.be/T0CpOYZZZW4

I mean, a jellyfin server is typically full of copyright protected material. I also wouldn’t expect them to notify you in advance, however they should still send some notice when they stop providing the service you’ve paid for.

Those are some strange panties.

Still unlikely to develop human to human transmission this way.

Completely aside but Diego Luna (the actor who plays Andor) always looks like :<

Dammit lmao the joke has stuck so hard I forget which one is the real one.

kerning

FTFY.

I love how all the Aones look stoned, except for Arnold himself.

a lot of people choose Reddit, or Facebook, or Instagram, or Snapchat, because the tradeoff is agreeable.

A lot of people choose those sites because they don’t understand the trade off, because the site is presented as “free of charge” while the exchange of your data is a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print of the terms and conditions. It is NOT and exchange of data for access to the service, not at the point of sale, not the way they present it.

There is also a nuance in that you have to grant them rights to your work in order for them to legitimately host the material. This is essential, but they use it as an opportunity to claim far more rights than are necessary, without any fair exchange.

Ohh, that actually looks like it might be worth watching. I got fed up with anime and all its tropes - particularly everything being set in high school.

They still have the right to distribute it. It’s not like reddit, who not only claim the right but also apparently claim ownership of any content you publish there, while providing no consideration (payment) in return.

However, as you say, they have the right to deny you, and by copying you are subverting their rights. That’s still not theft, though, which is why copyright infringement is a separate offense.

Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil matter.

Depends on how you define stealing.

Stealing is theft, or in US law larceny, which is very clearly defined. Copying does not meet this definition, hence why copyright infringement is a separate offense.

Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil offense (except commercial copyright infringement, which can be reached if the value exceeds $1,000 - lobbyists worked hard to criminalise what normal citizens were doing and had success in this point, while they still get away with fleecing everyone, both artists and end users).