Skip Navigation

Posts
34
Comments
542
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • I appreciate you guys fighting the good fight.

    At least SOMEONE'S on it.

  • I wouldn't say Google has been "beaten into submission". They still interweave their crap services into every Android phone with no ability to remove or disable them, couple their apps with an intrusive, privacy violating, system degrading backend with special rules for its own apps versus everybody else... even force the default system web browser to be an unremovable Chrome installation, and not even a peep from regulators that any of this might be anti-competitive.

    No company has been properly beaten into submission since Ma Bell. Even the big Microsoft browser decision in the 90s turned out to be a joke - they're right back to doing the same thing with impunity.

  • Apple was first. And the courts ruled it no problem.

  • I hate Google as much as anybody else, but that Google has been ordered to open up when they already allow side loading, and Apple is apparently all good, is all you need to know this whole system is a joke.

  • Apparently having your VP killed is an official duty with the presumption of immunity.

    Hope Vance is having fun.

  • This headline is a lie.

    ... it will only be TRUMP'S second term. It will be Vance's FIRST.

    Journalism is dead.

    /s

  • "Shhh! Don't tell the students that letting them make a note card is actually tricking them into studying! SHHH!"

  • His girlfriend's brother is adorable.

  • I RECOMMEND EVERYBODY LOVES HYPNOTOAD. IT IS A GREAT SHOW.

    ALL HAIL THE HYPNOTOAD.

  • What I mean is that the first generation immigrants who were granted permanent residency or citizenship should be treated the same way as multiple generation citizens, including crime punishment.

    I'm still confused... So do you want them sent back to country of origin or not? Because that's by definition a different treatment from 2nd generation or later citizens. Or do you want to deport 2nd generation citizens somewhere too?

  • I think I'm MORE confused now, but I appreciate that you tried to clarify.

  • all permanent resident/citizen immigrants that break a law should be returned to a country of origin.

    crimes should be treated equally, no matter who committed it.

  • You've said that, but this doesn't seem to be a copyright issue. As far as I know, Ryujinx used NONE of Nintendo's proprietary material whatsoever. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    What I'm seeing isn't an IP issue at all - it's simple strong-arming.

    The initial argument that started all of this chain was a statement that Nintendo was understandable in their legal action, and I took and STILL take issue with that.

    "They are absolutely within their rights to approach the developers of Ryujinx and threaten to sue them."

    While this is TECHNICALLY true in the most literal sense of the word, it carries the implication that there is something justifiable at some level about the actions they've taken.

    My response is it's correct in only the most pedantic sense, THIS is the element I find egregious for how much it understates just how disgusting Nintendo's actions are. This is nothing more than a mafia shakedown with lawyers instead of grunts, and to play it down like that is improper.

    IP, copyright, shutting down streamers... all of this is a totally separate issue, and all of THAT activity is actually SUPPORTED by law.

    Shutting down Ryujinx is on a massively different level. It's neither a copyright issue OR a legality issue. It's a direct strong-arming contrary to established law, and THAT is what this thread is about. There are other articles to discuss IP and content creators, which are a completely different issue with different repercussions.

  • And Elon Musk was "legally in the clear" to sue a trade group into non-existence over the idea that companies deciding to boycott his site independently was collusion.

    I am objecting loudly and powerfully to "legally in the clear" being equated with "acceptable" or "within the spirit of the law."

    Make no mistake. As far as we know, this is only legally in the clear because the developers are unable to fight it. That does NOT make Nintendo's action correct. By LAW the developers are in the right, they simply cannot afford to defend themselves. If your claim is that it is technically legal to threaten to sue anybody you want, you are correct and also terrifyingly shortsighted. Inability of someone to defend their rights for financial reasons is a miscarriage of justice. Given the options of smugly pointing out the technical situation or ranting about the injustice, I'll take the latter.

    Let's put it another way... You're absolutely right. Nintendo is LEGALLY in the right to bully someone into submission using the threat of a lawsuit they cannot afford with overwhelming money. The legal system can't touch them.

    But that means the ONLY place where Nintendo will EVER face ANY kind of consequences is in the court of public opinion, so why on EARTH would your take on the situation be, "Oh well... nothing we can do." It's not much, but it's the ONLY lever you have, and to relinquish it is fatalistic, shortsighted, and overall inconceivable as a strategy.

  • This is a fair point. I just get so sick of seeing the constant erosion of individual rights in the technology space due to apathy and under reactions, and it's a more or less constant, ongoing slide to the point where moments like this become absolutely infuriating.