They’ve longed lobbied for anti-circumvention legislation and the corrupt politicians in the US and the rest of the World (with the EU Comission as a notable mention) have made sure it was implemented everywhere, exactly to avoid such a future.

The entire rotten edifice of Intellectual Property in the present day is literally the product of decades of corrupt politicians stealing more and more from the Public Domain to extend and protect this entirelly artificial kind of “property” for the benefit of the ultra-rich - as Digital became more and more important, laws were made or changed to take more and more rights away from common people in order to make the wealthy wealthier, which is why the richest people in the world right now are mainly in Tech.

I was there in the 90s when this corrupt destruction of the “commons” started limiting what could be done in the Digital domain and saw how we Techies lost that war, which is how we ended up with two decades of every more and ever more enshittified “closed garden” setups for all kinds of digital things.

Without shit like anti-circumvention legislation run of the mill people would have easy access in their friendly corner store to China-made devices doing things like what you describe or, for example, break your iPhone out of Apple’s closed garden.

The shit low-innovation (certainly when compared to the 90s) World we live in right now is the product of decades of this purposeful transforming of the digital and intellectual commons into a Feudal system.

Clearly she asked Copilot to get these numbers.

Shameless bullshitting got her where she is now, so obviously she’ll keep on doing it.

And nepotism.

And cronyism.

Coming from the upper-middle and upper class and having attended the right schools and become mates with the right people is very highly correlated with becoming a top level executive.

The salvageable employee will actually learn.

The AI doesn’t learn.

They’re only equivalent for the kind of manager who thinks investing in people is a waste of money.

The modern executive who got their post from being mates with the right people, having attended the right schools and relentless self-promotion isn’t a highly analitical person who sistematically and in depth researches their options before chosing what to do.

This is unsurprising given that a system were the image one projects is critical to one’s career progression rewards almost the opposite: they’re supposed to look decisive and confident.

The myth of CxO competence is just that: a myth and the product of confusing the characteristics of the character they’re playing with the characteristics of the actor, something we’re definitelly egged on to do by the Media.

It’s only unbelievable that the execs did not expect this for those who believe the execs are actually competent at management rather than being people born in the right families and whose greatest competence is in playing the right role for the right audience.

Though in all fairness that isn’t much of a problem for a superconductor - no resistance, no waste heat when power runs through it.

The main problem would be the waste heat from the rest of the system rather than the superconductor itself, so maintaining a superconductor cool is more a thermal insulation problem and the near vacuum of space actually helps in doing it because it removes the heat transmission from the hotter parts of the system to the superconductor via the environment (though, of course, it still happens via the solid parts in contact with it, so the thermal insulation is needed there)

Of course not: it makes sense that Bomber numbers were much lower in Ancient times. Also the Romans would’ve used roman numerals.

So Roman bombers would probably be B II, B III, maybe even B IV

Lies!

Donald’s adult diapers stop his PP from reaching his pants.

I’m 100% sure the dam wall is not North-facing.

Mind you, this a great idea for a Dam facing the right way (ideally South).

Alternativelly, multiple subgroups within the power elites can support some of the same things for different reasons.

It’s perfectly logical that, for example, intrusive tracking under the excuse of Age Checks “to protect the children” is supported by the Pedophiles in the Elites because it helps them detected early and suppress attempts to change the very system which gives them immunity for their crimes, non-Pedophile people in positions of power support it for very similar reasons only they want the system protected so that they can stay in power, maybe because they like power or because of the money and priviledges they get from their position in that system, and big companies selling media to users support it because it lets them more strongly bind copies of that media to specific users hence people can’t share it (for example, two sibblings in the same house using the same device can’t share a single copy of a game) so those companies sell more copies hence make more money.

Reducing most people’s choices can serve different stakeholders who have different desires and for whom that reduction of the choices of consumers serves different objectives and yields different returns.

Trying to come up with a Theory of Everything for it is excessivelly reductionist and even simplistic - just because it’s easier to get one’s mind around a “they’re all the same” explanation than around something like what I’m putting forward, doesn’t mean the former is the right explanation.

This is about removing any and all ownership rights of buyers.

Not just of selling you copy second hand but also things like lending (even to your own family), gifting and even playing it in a different device

Mandatory Age Checks on the device also helps with stopying lending even to members of your family that live with you and use the same device to play the game: if the hardware (with the excuse of Age Checking) identifies the user, then the copy can be bound to a specific person in a specific devive rather than the device alone, so for example two siblings in the same household need to buy two copies to play it even at different times rather than just one copy as the “age check” identifies the user and only allows a specific user for a specific copy.

The fewer rights buyers de facto have, the more copies publishers sell as users can’t get the games by alternative legal means, and whilst at first there might be some backlash from taking those rights away, in my experience not only are most gamers sheeple or at best dogs that bark a lot but don’t bite, but usually they over time get used to not having those rights (especially as new, younger people, who grew up without having had them become gamers), so pretty much all backlash from taking those rights away eventually dissapears and those companies end up making more money than before.

I’ve had a similar experience, but for even longer (piracy of ZX Spectrum games was pretty common where I lived back in the 80s).

In my experience, the ebb and flow of piracy very much depends on the media - music was pretty easy to pirate from very early on the internet age as soon as decent sound compression methods were invented (most notably those used in MP3) because each track is a pretty small file then stuff like Spotify reduced it, video piracy actually took off with faster Internet and better compression methods (starting with MPEG) and then fell with cheap streaming, game piracy took increased with faster Internet (though there it was weirder - games sizes and internet speed kinda went up more or less in parallel) and then fell thanks to stores like Steam and GOG.

That said, I personally never switched from piracy to streaming because I saw it back then as “not really owning anything” with all the associated risks (which we’ve seen materializing with the enshittification of the last decade) plus I’m averse to subscription models since financially they tend to end up adding up to more money than just buying because you’re paying subscription to access a ton of mediocre stuff and a handfull of good stuff vs just buying the handful of good stuff.

(I suspect that, because I became familiar with and started working in Tech during the transition to the Internet Era, much earlier than most here, I was more keenly aware of the risks of what you supposedly “owned” not really being in your hands and the real overall financial returns for the user of subscription models, hence I always saw it as a trap).

The funny bit is that when I could just buy the digital media in an unlocked format, I switched away from piracy, which is why I pretty much didn’t pirate games during the DVD era, then games started coming with phone-home DRM and I went back to pirating again and later I discovered GOG and stopped pirating again.

Had I’ve been able to legally just buy and download videos in an open format, I would’ve gladly paid for it, but instead they’ve stopped getting money from me ever since locked-down region-locked Bluray became the norm.

Seems weird that they would want to help the US.

It’s about who controls it.

Because if one side controls it and does something with it they’re not legally entitled to do do, they still get away with it if it’s not worth it for the other side, even being in the right, to take it to Court.

So if you have in your hands the files for the installer for a game which doesn’t do phone-home validations and you’ve actually explicity rented it for a limited time yet carried on using it past that point, the other side would have to take you to Court to stop it, and in the absence of a streamlined and very cheap Judicial process to do so for that kind of thing (like there is for things like loans) it’s generally not worth it for them because it costs more than they gain.

Similarly, if they control if and when you can install and run a game (which is possible even if you have the physical media - all it takes is for the game to have phone-home DRM that checks if you’re authorized) and they stop you from using it, even if you’re in the right with zero doubts (so, there was no clear upfront information that you were paying for a unilaterally revokable license and you live in a jurisdiction where Justice isn’t a joke, like Germany, so the unilaterally imposition of further contractual conditions after the sale - i.e. EULAs - aren’t at all valid), it’s generally not worth it to take it to Court to force the other side to restore you access to the game or compensate you (a few euros) for it because it costs more than you get back from it.

Holding physical media is highly correlated with controlling it, but (as per my example above) in a World of always on Internet access were phone-home DRM is easy to have, it’s no guarantee at all of actually controlling it - you might have the bytes in the stablest imaginable storage medium in your hands and you still don’t control it because you can’t actually access the game without external authorization - and that in practice means that you can get shafted even though you’re entirely in the right as long as the monetary amount you being shafted out of isn’t too large.

Converselly, whilst digital distribution is highly correlated with not controlling it, as stores like GOG show it’s perfectly possibly to sell games digitally in such a way that you get control of it (if you want - you have to actually download GOGs offline installers) by which point the cost of trying to control what you do with it is on the other side and the same monetary logic applies - it’s not worth it for them as long as the monetary amount they would gain from doing it isn’t too large.

Curiously, this also means that for PC games GOG can actually be a better way of getting de facto ownership of a game copy than physical media (if you make sure you download the offline installer) because GOG enforces the rule that their games have no DRM, whilst plenty of PC games in physical media have phone-home DRM.

Well, you see, Ju$tice is expensive and unreliable.

So the decision of using or not the Justice System for enforcing one’s rights isn’t purelly “am I likely to win”, it’s also about “is it worth it bringing it to Court”, which is especially important when the damages one is entitled to get are low (like the price of a game).

At which point “who controls the thing under dispute”, which is theoretically unimportant in a perfect Justice System, becomes the main deciding factor.

Maybe an example will make it clear:

• You have a game which the publisher wants to take away from you. They’re actually in their right to do so: you actually read through and accepted BEFORE PURCHASING (this is important in jurisdiction which aren’t legal jokes, unlike the US) a set of terms and conditions that gave them that right and it was clearly that this wasn’t a sale but a time limited licensing. However you have the actual installer for a single player game (in your computer, physical disk, whatever), totally free to install, no phone-home DRM authorization check - you control that copy. They have to actually take you to court to force you to delete that game from your system and destroy all copies. This is a $50 game. Are they really going to do it for a $50 game?!
• Similarly but reversed: you bought a physical disk with a game, it cost $50, it has phone-home DRM to install and to run. You didn’t agreed to anything before the purchase and you’re in a legal jurisdiction (such as Germany) which is not a joke so the implicit rights from a sale cannot be altered unilaterally post sale by a forced change of the contract terms of the sale (i.e. EULAs aren’t valid there). You’re in the right yet they block you from installing or running that game. To get back what you’re entitled to or compensation (all of $50) you have to take them to court. Are you really going to do it for a $50 game?!

Anyways, the point I’m making here is that well before a Court of Law actually goes through the whole thing and determines who is in the Right and orders a certain action in favor of and/or compensation for the injured side, de facto the outcome is often decided by the actual stakeholders deciding “is it worth it taking this to court?” and in a system where Justice has costs (the bigger the costs the more that’s the case) “who controls it” is pretty much the single biggest factor in that decision.

In simple terms, unless there is some kind of streamlined Judicial process for that kind of case (like there is around things like loans) bringing a case to court to force the side in control of something to act in a certain way with it is only worth it for large monetary amounts, and generally the price of a game is below that.

It just so happens that at the moment for console games having the installer for it in a physical medium in your control is having control of that copy but, as my example above illustrates, if the game does phone-home DRM authorization checks like some PC games go, it’s actually not really under your control even if you have it in physical media.

You do understand that’s logically “keep looking differently towards a certain kind of people because murderous aggressors who looked differently towards them did horrible things to them because of it”?!

You’re literally justifying the continuation of a discriminatory perspective towards people with minority sexual orientations by using the actions of the aggressors had and acted on said discriminatory perspective.

At best that’s circular logic, or maybe Stockholm Syndrome (since you’ve accepted the perspective of the aggressor even if you disapprove of their actions)

You’re making my point on why the “it’s all normal” perspective of the Dutch is so refreshing compared to the perspective of Anglo-Saxon countries.

The English Law Act 1962 stipulates that English common law will apply to Gibraltar unless overridden by Gibraltar law. This means that amongst others the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as well as earlier and later laws around surveillance, apply in Gibraltar by default.

I supposed one would need to find legal counsel in Gibraltar to determine if Gibraltar has passed laws that nullify English laws on surveillance powers, and until proven that Gibraltar has passed said laws the most logical expectation to have is that the same surveillance laws that apply in Great Britain also apply in Gibraltar because that’s the case for most laws.

Actually they used to be pretty good back in the 80s and early 90s when they were a hardware maker and the company was always headed by somebody from the Engineering division - they made high quality consumer electronics at reasonable prices.

This is how they built quite the brand name.

Then in the late 90s (if I remember it correctly) they bought a major movie studio in the US and after a few years the top job went to somebody from the Media division.

After that all their electronics (such as Bluray and the MiniDisk) was locked down by design, quality fell a lot, they started lobbying heavily for things that would make Intellectual Property more valuable such as extending the duration of Copyrights, the DMCA and Anti-Circumvention legislation, and became so anti-consumer that they even put out music CDs with rootkits for people who listened to it on a PC.

But yeah, for over 2 decades Sony has been pretty much Evil.

That is not informing the potential buyer in a simple way, that’s hiding the information in a different page, one which is a long text made up of legalese which one need Legal Training to fully understand.

You’re just making my point.

You know what would be a simple, obvious, honest way of in that page of telling the purchaser that they’re buying a license?

• To the left of the discount and the price put the text “BUY A LICENSE FOR:”

“Strangely” Steam chooses not do any such thing or similar and instead chooses to “inform” buyers with a link to a different page which is a wall of legal text.