251–260 of 514 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally find a rip of the book online to drop onto my reMarkable then purchase it through some ebook marketplace. Now I have a DRM-free copy and the author gets their cut.
That's certainly noble, but it doesn't send the message that you're unhappy with DRM. You're ultimately engaging in piracy and at the same time not voting with your wallet. I don't see any alternative, but just wanted to make that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see exactly zero basis for his complaint. > P.S. No, I'm not saying that Google is in the right. You are, however, clearly saying they are not in the wrong... I'm not sure that difference matters.
Not at all. He used a service for years, for free. He got what he paid for, in fact he got more than what he paid for. > I'm not sure that difference matters. It does. Customers pay money. He is not a customer.
Where there is profitable trade both parties have certain responsibilities.
Personally I stopped using free services everywhere I can because of this legal vacuum leaving me exposed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, when you're making an omelette you have to break some eggs. There has been a literal, yet largely silent, book burning going on with Google services in recent years. On youtube, many alternative voices are silenced, billions of comments deleted. I know its a private company, but in the US there are free speech laws + the possibility of using the court system (if someone makes a libellous statement). But no, sil…
Personal opinions about censorship aside, Google aren’t breaking any free speech laws because free speech doesn’t mean anyone can post anything on private channels. No, the law is a lot more specific than that, eg the government cannot censor individuals. To that end, free speech has been upheld against social media platforms in specific circumstances. Eg when Trump blocked people he didn’t like on Twitter. I’ll get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's certainly noble, but it doesn't send the message that you're unhappy with DRM. You're ultimately engaging in piracy and at the same time not voting with your wallet. I don't see any alternative, but just wanted to make that point.
Steal the content and Venmo the creator?
> The added grievance to this is that my drive also included my own personal family photos and my current book on the subject I mean, how many times does this need to come up for people to learn the lesson? If you are storing your data with a third party, and you do not have an iron legal contract with this third party, then that third party can and will do whatever it wants with your data, including locking you out…
How’s Synology NAS? Safe local storage or can they back door in and fuck with your data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no activity on YouTube, Blogger, or any other Google service since they tied up all the accounts, just to minimize the chance of getting my Gmail chopped off. (Note to self: stop giving feedback on Maps routing. You never know.)
I'm sure you already know, but setting up your own myname@mydomain.tld and then setting that up in Gmail[1][2] means that in a catastrophic scenario (your Gmail is closed) you don't lose your email address. In addition to that, you should frequently take a backup of your Gmail emails[3], then in case your account is locked you can use the exported mbox[4] archive, and import it in Thunderbird, this works reasonably[5…
I still don't feel like going traipsing around minefields. I'm sure there's a benefit from tying together all Google services - for me, it just keeps me away from most of them. And I even pay for Google One.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What we really should be asking is why is google examining user data at all. Without reading into the details, I don't think that google arbitrarily examines all user files on Google Drive (and please correct me if I am wrong, but that's what I remember since the last time this discussion was had). Google only examines files that were shared with other users or were made accessible to others through a shareable lin…
I hope I'm not the only one who got a little squeamish at this...I understand the logic, "don't let people transfer/share things that are illegal". But it doesn't sit right that 1) A gigantic private company operating across most of the world/laws/jurisdictions/precedents etc...is in charge of determining (with little to no human oversight) what can and can't be shared between individuals. Who might even be in compet…