cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions

  • 24 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 17th, 2022

help-circle








  • This video is full of jarring edits which initially made me wonder if someone had cut out words or phrases to create an abbreviated version. But, then I realized there are way too many of them to have been done manually. I checked the full original video and from the few edits i manually checked it seems like it is just inconsequential pauses etc that were removed: for instance, when Linus says “the other side of that picture” in the original there is an extra “p” sound which is removed here.

    Yet another irritating and unnecessary application of neural networks, I guess.













  • If copyright holders want to take action, their complaints will go to the ISP subscriber.

    So, that would either be the entity operating the public wifi, or yourself (if your mobile data plan is associated with your name).

    If you’re in a country where downloading copyrighted material can have legal consequences (eg, the USA and many EU countries), in my opinion doing it on public wifi can be rather anti-social: if it’s a small business offering you free wifi, you risk causing them actual harm, and if it is a big business with open wifi you could be contributing to them deciding to stop having open wifi in the future.

    So, use a VPN, or use wifi provided by a large entity you don’t mind causing potential legal hassles for.

    Note that if your name is somehow associated with your use of a wifi network, that can come back to haunt you: for example, at big hotels it is common that each customer gets a unique password; in cases like that your copyright-infringing network activity could potentially be linked to you even months or years later.

    Note also that for more serious privacy threat models than copyright enforcement, your other network activities on even a completely open network can also be linked to identify you, but for the copyright case you probably don’t need to worry about that (currently).







  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldLinux "Anti"-Piracy Screen
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What a confused image.

    1. TiVo complied with the GPLv2 and distributed source code for their modifications to Linux. What they did not do was distribute the cryptographic keys which would allow TiVo customers to run modified versions it on their TiVo devices. This is what motivated the so-called anti-tivoization clause in GPLv3 (the “Installation Information” part of Section 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.).
    2. Linux remains GPLv2, so, everyone today still has the right to do the same thing TiVo did (shipping it in a product with a locked bootloader).
    3. Distributing Linux (or any GPLv2 software) with a threat of violence against recipients who exercise some of the rights granted by the license, as is depicted in this post, would be a violation section 6 of GPLv2 (“You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.”).