all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 78 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Does masterlock get to sue the companies that make lockpicks?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Come now, you don't need something fancy like lockpicks to pick most Masterlocks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

    Seriously. Sometimes a twig or a small yellow mallet will suffice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    This is allowed because the DMCA sucks. It specifically calls out that circumventing copy protection is a violation. This also means that any company that adds protection also is able to effectively deny your right to make a backup copy.

    This doesn't apply to physical goods where ownership actually has meaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    U.S.C. § 1201 can be used against your physical goods too since it's so damn broad about circumventing DRM.

    This is why your physical good like the good ol' Bambu labs was able to file a DMCA notice against OrcaSlicer fork.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago

    The general idea is correct, but the Bambu Labs example is inaccurate. Bambu Labs incorrectly issued a DMCA takedown for the user interfacing with their GPL-licensed code. Bambu Labs are in violation of the terms of the GPL license.

    Rossmann has several videos explaining this, and has offered $20K to fund the illegally targeted dev's legal fees. Bambu Labs is pretty clearly in the wrong.

    A better example would be John Deere blocking farmers from fixing their tractors, or Apple blocking users from replacing parts in their phones. According to the DMCA, you don't own your tractor, and you don't own your phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    If👏buying👏isn't👏owning👏then👏piracy👏isn't👏stealing👏

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    Sure denuvo whatever you say lets get you to bed

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 days ago*

    This will be about as effective as the US lawsuit against Anna's Archive.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    Good thing he's anonymous I guess!

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago* (8 children)

    they're* 😉

    You know, like FG.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (7 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago* (6 children)

    fit-girl 🤓

    They use images of Audrey Tautou as their pic, and have stated in a few forums (back when) that they're not female.

    Numerous newcomers to the scene still simp and refer to them as one, though. Because profile pics are proof of anything IRL, yep. 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    In fairness, their name is fitgirl not fitperson so I’d say it’s at least somewhat understandable to start with she/her pronouns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    So... how is taking text at face value any different from doing the exact same with an image? 🧏🏼‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (3 children)

    One is a random/transient image, the other is a chosen name they identify with. People quite often put random anime/movie/show images as their pfp, they don’t normally put an explicit gender in their name. If you don’t understand how that is different, I don’t know that I can help you understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    FYI, "fit" was slang for "attractive" long before it was short for "outfit", ergo the username is not an "explicit" statement of the user's/users' gender IRL. ☝🏼

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    To the extent that any username isn’t explicitly a statement of the users gender, I agree. But if I used the name “just some girl” as my username, I’d expect people to assume I was a girl. Same with “just some guy” assuming I was a guy.

    The moment you put a gender into your username, people are going to roll with what appears to be a self identification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment