Hildegarde @ Hildegarde @lemmy.world

*There is no record of this bio*

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

687

Joined

2 yr. ago

Whether it is legal to distribute that key does not depend on which platform is distributing it.

When lawyers write a formal letter it is backed by an implied threat that it could become litigious if the demands aren't met.

Launching on steam didn't make distributing the key illegal. If its illegal on steam, it's illegal even when self-hosted.

Nintnedo took action because they knew they had leverage against valve.

So are they going to have to pay it back or did the FTC make a report for nothing?

Dolphin was not taken down. Dolphin was not allowed to launch on Steam because Nintendo threatened Valve with a lawsuit. Regardless of the merits of the case, Valve doesn't want to pay to defend a case so they can distribute a free emulator, so they caved and blocked Dolphin's Steam release.

Nintendo claimed Dolphin violates the DMCA but have not taken any direct legal action against Dolphin as far as I am aware.

There are many emulators for nintendo consoles. Very few are taken down by legal actions, because it is legal to develop an emulator. Hardware is functional and cannot be copyrighted.

Yuzu's problem was they supported piracy. They made special patches of the emulator to play leaked games which they sold through patreon. That's how you get sued for piracy.

Ryujinx does not allow discussions of piracy, commercial ROMs, or firmware on any of their own platforms. The emulator can play commercial games, but they only link to instructions on how to dump your own cartridges and firmware from legally purchased sources.

That is how smart developers protect themselves from lawsuits. It has worked for Dolphin, and many other emulators. Ryujinx will probably be just as safe.

Holy shit. I thought being trans only gave you an air dash.

I did look specifically for that, but I couldn't find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can't be required to prove or claim to be disabled.

I read the some of the text of the ADA. That's the extent of my research. If you're interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.

Linux is a kernel. In that sense Android is Linux.

However when people say Linux they usually mean the full OS with the GNU utilities and all the other things that make up a Linux distro.

In that sense, Android is not Linux as pretty much everything other than the kernel is built specifically for android.

My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don't want to conclude anything beyond that, because that's what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.

If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.

The ADA is a complex law, like all laws. Food allergies are mentioned by the ADA.

Although food allergies don't require proactive accommodation, disabled people are entitled to equal access despite their disability.

If a restaurant offers no substitutions that's fine. But if a restaurant offers substitutions but refuses it for those with allergies, that's not fine.

If a restaurant doesn't stock non-allergic ingredients it doesn't have to. But if the restaurant will stock special ingredients upon request, they must do the same for disabled customers.

In this case, starbucks DOES stock and offer non-dairy milks. Using a different milk is probably a reasonable accommodation. The ADA has rules against charging extra for reasonable accomodations.

The conclusion that starbucks charging extra is a violation of the ADA is not an unreasonable one.

The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.

Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.

The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It's not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.

The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.

Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.

As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks's milks doesn't seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.

No see my other comment for details

The gun's name is an initialism for "Fuck Gun Control", with the "9" referencing its 9mm cartridge.

They've got the best branding

The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.

36.307 Accessible or special goods:

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities.

(b) A public accommodation shall order accessible or special goods at the request of an individual with disabilities, if, in the normal course of its operation, it makes special orders on request for unstocked goods, and if the accessible or special goods can be obtained from a supplier with whom the public accommodation customarily does business.

(c) Examples of accessible or special goods include items such as Brailled versions of books, books on audio cassettes, closed-captioned video tapes, special sizes or lines of clothing, and special foods to meet particular dietary needs.

From my understanding Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk. As they do not do special inventory orders for customers, they could remove the non-dairy milk options from the menu without violating the ADA.

But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:

36.301(c) Charges.

A public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.

In my amateur reasercher's opinion, this case seems sound. Charging extra for milk alternatives is probably a violation of the ADA.

Old anti piracy measure.

Games were on floppies and could be copied trivially. Games also came with a printed instruction manual. If you bought it, you'd have the manual. If you're just playing a copy you wouldn't. So type one word from a specific page so we know you own the game.

Old TVs only had one input. They had a coaxual cable that would connect to your antenna or cable provider. The TV has a tuner to select channels.

Because there is only one input, the only way to display a console is to spoof the broadcast signals the TV expects to get from the antenna.

To set this up, you connect both the console and your antenna to an RF converter box. This replaces channel 3 or 4 with your console so you can play games while still being able to watch TV.

Once consoles and VCRs became an established thing, TV makers started adding other plugs. But in the early days, this was the only way to play consoles on home TVs.

They were making $30k a month from their patreon. That's enough money to afford a lawyer, and plenty of incentive to defend themselves in court if they genuine believed they weren't doing anything illegal.

Their patreon had custom builds of the emulator specifically tailored to run leaked games before release. In their own patreon, yuzu's developers admitted to having copies of nintendo's games at a time they could not be legally purchased. They also admitted to profiting from those illegally obtained ROMs for an amount that patreon shares publicly. That is the sort of slam-dunk evidence that would make nintendo's lawyers salivate.

This isn't an unclear situation. Yuzu was legally in the wrong. If this went to trial they would almost assuredly lose even more. If yuzu was doing more piracy there's no way to hide it during discovery.

The great tit is currently "least concern." They're not even close to endangered.