381–390 of 392 posts
I'm curious what would take for regular people (i.e. people off HN) to realize what is pointed in the article is a real problem. In my experience, every time I mention this I'm labeled as: nostalgic old guy, Don Quixote wannabe, tinfoil hat supporter, pirate nerd who doesn't understand people just want convenience. I've seen people bit by losing access to purchased content shrug and say "yeah, that's bad isn't it? at…
I'm curious what would take for regular people (i.e. people off HN) to realize what is pointed in the article is a real problem. In my experience, every time I mention this I'm labeled as: nostalgic old guy, Don Quixote wannabe, tinfoil hat supporter, pirate nerd who doesn't understand people just want convenience. I've seen people bit by losing access to purchased content shrug and say "yeah, that's bad isn't it? at…
The services can also just be annoying, and in some cases generate enough pushback that the publisher changes. Happened with Xbox. It's their right to publish however they want, but I'm not going to pay for annoyances, which nowadays is basically all video games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so it'd be hard to get some passkeys onto your yubikey in the first place. It's as easy to get a passkey on it as it was to originally create the first passkey. That's the thing with them. You can make a bunch. It was just as easy to add the first passkey as it was the second and third and fourth and fifth and.... The point is to not reuse the same passkey everywhere. Same idea as not using the same password everyw…
Okay let me withdraw slightly. What I mean is: if I choose of my own free will to not be able to access the bits (e.g. via a cryptoprocessor) then sure, I can still "own" it. And that's the case for certificate authorities. But when vendors force me (with remote attestation) to not be able to access the bits, then I see that as me not having control => me not owning the key.
Service A allows a wide variety of authenticators to store your passkey, it doesn't do any checks at all for the requirement. You choose a USB hardware authenticator. We both agree you own the key in this from what I understand.
Service B allows a stricter list of types of authenticators, and does some checks to ensure you're using an authenticator with a least a certain level of security guarantees. Your USB hardware authenticator meets these requirements. Now this key that is stored in the same place on the same hardware using pretty much the same process is now no longer "yours"?
An interesting perspective to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They just released four games yesterday and looking at the news reel it seems they release a bunch of games every day. They're also running a summer sale right now. I doubt they're anywhere close to being dead. They are known to take their time when it comes to developer submissions (and that time can be quite long) but that was the case since pretty much forever, not something that happened with the new/original own…
"We approved 4 new games today"
Dead platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just released four games yesterday and looking at the news reel it seems they release a bunch of games every day. They're also running a summer sale right now. I doubt they're anywhere close to being dead. They are known to take their time when it comes to developer submissions (and that time can be quite long) but that was the case since pretty much forever, not something that happened with the new/original own…
Imagine if Steam or App Store or Google Play or anybody serious said: "We approved 4 new games today" Dead platform.
I love physical media as a ritual, but loathe it as a storage medium - it's fragile, it rots, and manufacturers can't be trusted to create long-lasting products anymore. Not to mention the fact that UHD drives used to rip modern content are almost entirely defunct, with the remaining few going for nearly half a grand in the current climate. Personally, in light of AI getting a hand-wave on massive piracy for training…
> Not to mention the fact that UHD drives used to rip modern content are almost entirely defunct, with the remaining few going for nearly half a grand in the current climate. Protip: All BDXL drives have the necessary hardware to read UHD discs.
Besides, with the Sony announcements today, I doubt the long-term support of BDXL or UHD in general. I might need to grab a mini Kaleidescape system and see about exfiltrating their digital copies sans DRM at this rate, if I want to buy stuff to own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an excuse, not universally applicable, and not even well supported by your own link. > Herzog continued. “I don’t like it because I would like to earn some money with my films. But if someone like you steals my films through the internet or whatever, fine, you have my blessing. He’d rather you didn’t. And I bet you’re not checking every artist. Just be honest and say you don’t want to pay, don’t act like you’r…
Not sure why you are directing this at me personly, I dont pirate anything. However I have had experience with many people in the industry who would rather their media reached a wider audience, regardless of how much money it makes. If you dont like my link, you can always google your own. Or here, have a few more from a quick google: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/hollywood-dir... https://www.theguar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You actually have to support the creators however THEY want if you want access, not however YOU want. I suspect you're not actually supporting all the creators of the things you watch via piracy!
> You actually have to support the creators however THEY want if you want access, not however YOU want. No, I don't. > I suspect you're not actually supporting all the creators of the things you watch via piracy! I don't actually want to support most of them. The few I care about get donations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the idea of "paying creators for things I want" is outdated or impractical. Law and order is the foundation of civilization, and just because some dumb companies charge more than you want does not mean you are righteous for breaking the social contract.
You're not paying creators. You're paying the extraction machine that squeezes artists dry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My issue is not understanding "why people are frustrated", it's that people think that frustration entitles them to take things they do not need from artists and creators who are trying to make a living.
The vast majority of the money goes to middlemen, rights holders, investors, executives and other suited up parasites. If you want artists to make a living, you need to end shareholder capitalism, not reinforce it.