It does nothing to dissuade content gatekeepers from employing restrictive DRM on their sites.
Anti-DRM would be avoiding anything that gives money to those that employ DRM to incentivize the removal of the DRM. Frankly, flat out piracy (streaming ripped content) is more likely to result in the removal of DRM than making it appear that the DRM is working well for the provider.
Regarding point 1, recent judicial decisions on scraping seemed to have entrenched it as legal.
On two, it seems like they are concerned with trademark to me. A workaround could be making a website that parses and displays Twitter content and call it something else. Then, in an app, make no mention of Twitter and only the website.
That’s because San Francisco is expensive. A sandwich with no sides at many places downtown is more than $10 and I’m pretty sure it’s not organized shoplifting…
Until the plastic results in loss of sales because people don’t want to bother, we probably won’t see it reversed. The cost is sunk. Why wouldn’t they leave it, even if ineffective, as long as it doesn’t cost them anything?
Stores have thought of this, and know the effects already. Apparently putting products behind glass causes almost a 50% drop in sales( because people don’t want to bother), so stores would prefer not to put anything behind glass or a counter, but they do because the alternative is 100% loss from theft.
Theres that kind of growth, and then the expectation that you grow into every conceivable vertical to expand more rapidly or support stock prices for an otherwise stagnant business.
In response to those complaints GitHub now requires you to accept the invitation before you're added. And it always sent an email notification and allowed you to leave voluntarily.
Yea. That’s the part that is ripped. Making a new photo sharing app shouldn’t be controversial.
I like Pixelfed, but it was naive to rip the filter names and think that was somehow ok. It was also a totally unnecessary thing to copy. An imitation filter could be called anything and people will be able to tell (assuming you did a good enough job imitating).
No commuters? What city are you referring to? In SF, Muni is packed along my commute to the city. Probably there’s not as much commuting, but there’s certainly quite a bit.
Also, more dense housing actually usually means less commuting. That’s one of the reasons I generally support it. People living closer to work means less commute time resulting in less carbon as well.
My observation in Boston is that driving in by car at rush hour is as bad as it has ever been. Commuter rail ridership seems to be significantly down relative to pre-pandemic so some of the traffic probably comes from that, but it's still very heavy so a lot of people are obviously still commuting in.
I think we could easily go back to the days (not so long ago) when SF was a bedroom community for SV and working in SF was the reverse commute. SF could become a fun place to live and play again.
It does nothing to dissuade content gatekeepers from employing restrictive DRM on their sites.
Anti-DRM would be avoiding anything that gives money to those that employ DRM to incentivize the removal of the DRM. Frankly, flat out piracy (streaming ripped content) is more likely to result in the removal of DRM than making it appear that the DRM is working well for the provider.