Zoolander @ dpkonofa @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

920

Joined

2 yr. ago

That is not true. Apple was disabling PWAs because the new EU regs require that they allow other browser engines for browsers and there are considerations that would need to be taken into account for end users. Since PWAs can be run in standalone modes, it is reasonable to expect that they would fall under those regulations as it’s still a browser engine displaying the content but without any window chrome. This changed after it was clarified that it only applies to browsers downloaded from App Stores, known as “dedicated browser applications”.

The idea that Apple was trying to “get rid of PWAs” is ridiculous since the entire reason the App Store didn’t exist on iPhone was that Apple was trying to push PWAs.

I don’t think they could, at least not in the timeframe provided by the EU. That’s the entire (and only) reason they’re reverting to the existing implementation. The existing law, as written, doesn’t seem to apply to PWAs.

That’s not true, though. The way that PWAs render and run is different from the way they run inside of an app like a browser. Because they were required to allow different browser engines, it seems Apple initially thought that meant they needed to allow PWAs to run via different engines too, hence the initial stance. Based on the law, as written, It’s completely reasonable for them to interpret it that way. Since that’s not the case, they’re not changing the current PWA implementation.

How was it shortsighted? The only reason they made the decision in the first place was because they felt they were legally obligated to do so? It’s only staying as is because it turns out they’re not.

Edit: I don’t know why people are downvoting. The parent comment and reply to my comment are objectively incorrect.

Yes, it is. The only change being made is that WebKit home apps are being allowed. Since Apple couldn’t create the Home app frameworks for third party apps, they disabled all of them to comply with the new rules. This just means that, unless the EU says otherwise, Home Screen WebKit apps are still ok without needing to open to third-party engines. This is a non-story as that is already the currently released functionality and the change was only made because Apple was attempting to be conservative with its compliance.

I’m pretty sure that the bat is photoshopped in. Her hand position doesn’t look like it’s actually holding anything.

I have no use for these instructions but wanted to say thank you for taking your time to do this. I have been in this type of situation countless times and would kill for a response like this. Thank you for being helpful and useful to someone in need.

Not at all what I'm arguing. Dropping content and claiming you don't own something that they position as "buying" is stealing too. I'm not arguing that and have not said what you're claiming anywhere. You're arguing a straw man.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

if a pirates copy was not available.

This is exactly why my calculation does work. If a pirated copy was not available, they wouldn't be able to consume the media without paying for it.

We can summarise all of these by saying "theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession".

Yes... and as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, we're disagreeing on what is being stolen. You're arguing that it's not theft because no one is deprived of the media. That is not the argument. I'm arguing that they're being deprived of the income. You are stealing money from the creator.

You're assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it.

No, I'm not. I'm not assuming anything. I'm flat out asserting that, if they had not been able to pirate it, they would not be able to consume the media unless they paid for it. This is a fact that you cannot dispute.

You're poor because people didn't want to buy it.

If they didn't want to buy it, then they aren't entitled to still make use of it.

It's not a strawman argument, it's a tangental argument that is very relevant to the subject at hand. Pirated versions are sometimes better than the official versions.

It is a straw man because I never made that argument. I never stated or made any kind of position about pirated versions and how they compare to official versions. In fact, I've argued elsewhere in this thread that piracy can be justified in any number of situations. Whether it's justified or not doesn't change that it's stealing.

No, you're misunderstanding the term "stolen" and "theft". You should really look it up.

I am not. In fact, people have posted the definitions here. Again, we're just disagreeing on what is being stolen.

Either way, I'm done here because you're continuing to argue straw men, ignore the most central idea of my argument, and then claiming that I'm misunderstanding something when the entire point of my argument is how the two things are fundamentally the same and result in the creator not being paid for their work.

I have pointed out how they're different, from my first comment to my last.

I said materially different. You've pointed out ways they are different that have no bearing on my point and aren't relevant to it. You've mostly focused on the legal aspects of copyright infringement vs. physical theft which has nothing to do with my argument.

And now you've done it again. You're arguing the legality of copyright infringement and how it differs from physical theft which has no bearing on my position.

But what you're ignoring is the idea of whether or not they would have bought instead of pirating.

I'm not ignoring it. I've literally stated the argument against that statement several times - if they didn't buy it, they couldn't consume it if piracy didn't exist.

only consumed the material because it was free

It wasn't free. That's why it's stealing.

The reality is that most of the content people pirate is not content they would have paid for,

Then they shouldn't be able to consume it! There's no issue if they wouldn't have paid for it if they don't consume it. The whole argument that they wouldn't have bought it becomes bullshit as soon as they do consume it because, without piracy, they would not have been able to consume it.

I have pointed that out as a possibility. Not consuming it at all, though, is not theft precisely because the person isn't consuming it.

Not in the US. The content of my courses (I had a total of 9 years of undergraduate study lol, in 2 different universities, in both science and engineering) was all in the lecture slides/notes.

Ok, so as I suspected. If your classes weren't lecture based, you'd probably be in a similar situation then. That's not really a refutation of the point, though.

However, that doesn't mean you have suffered a loss

This is the entire crux of my argument, though. If they're playing the game, then you have suffered a loss because, otherwise, they wouldn't be able to play the game. The alternative is that the game has to be DRM'd or somehow otherwise inconvenienced and that's just bullshit. Why is it so hard to just admit that you shouldn't be able to play something that you haven't paid for and that, if you do, you're stealing? There's no judgement on that. I don't care if that's what you want to do. I just think people should be honest and admit that that's what they're doing.

The middle man kills good business far more than any pirate. I'm sure Google and Apple made a satisfactory profit off your apps, even if you suffered a loss.

Agree with this and everything above that you wrote. I feel like that explicitly disproves your argument, though, that piracy is only a service/quality issue. I'm very familiar with what Gabe has said and mostly agree with his position but that's an entirely different argument, yet again, than what I've been making. Gabe doesn't pretend that people pirating games aren't stealing them. He's just arguing that there are service reasons for why people might pirate them that have nothing to do with just the cost of the game.

The movie is good, so fewer people pirate it, because they're also happy to pay for it.

Again, if this were true and this simple, no good movies would be pirated. And yet they are.

Nonsense. You're just continuing to be dishonest. You do not have access to their server. You destroyed the product you have. This is like saying that if you took a television and destroyed it that the TV isn't gone because there are more TVs in the manufacturer's warehouse.

Then you're proving my point that you've paid for the rights to a copy of that file

No, I'm not. That's not my argument so I'm not proving anything. You're arguing a straw man and not what I've actually said.

I guess you're making up your own definition for ignoring too.

Ok, well... bye.

No, of course not. They're explicitly allowing you to have it for free. It can't be piracy if they're not selling their work. The entire premise is that, if they're selling it, then the trade is payment in exchange for their work.

This is false. "Pay for it" or "Pirate it" are not the only 2 options available.

What are the other options then?

If I snap the that disc, I've done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.

This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method. That's the entire distinction between this physical media and the intangible product on the disc. You're continuing to be dishonest.

If you want to be consistent, then you'd have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I'm stealing.

I do not have to assert any such thing. You've already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That's not what my argument is.

No, it's the red herring you keep pushing.

Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.

Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don't specifically order one particular series.

These are distributors and they don't have a monopoly on anime or manga. They just happen to be the producers who pay for the anime and manga that you like. That's not an argument against my point.

If buying digital products isn't owning then pirating isn't theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who 'bought' their digital products.

Nonsense. This is an entirely different argument than what I'm making. I think it's false advertising and theft just as much that these companies use the term "Buy" for something you don't actually own. That is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is theft. Two wrongs don't make it right.

I'm not arguing about Funimation's actions. I've already said multiple times that that is also theft. That doesn't make piracy not theft.

We are talking about copyright infringement.

We're not. I'm not making any kind of legal distinction.

I think we just need to agree to disagree. You're ignoring the very central part of my argument to try and argue the legal distinctions that are irrelevant to my point. If it's just going to continue to be a semantic argument then I'm not interested in continuing.