From Google: https://files.catbox.moe/e33oai.png
Far be it from me to question something as reliable a Google-made AI, but aren't they just describing a legal resident with Temporary Protected Status? Given that it was handed out to more Venezuelans than any other nationality, it seems like a decent bet?
I only say this because I hate journalists more than I hate Disney. Was this some sort of actual statement or did some mouth breather at an event did the, "VANESSA, DOES FANTASTIC FOUR ADDRESS THE FACT THAT YOU'RE A WOMAN?" and get a ".. yes?" so they could write a clickbait headline?
Edit:
Here's the actual quote, but Entertainment Weekly omits what they asked to get the response.
"If you played an exact '60s Sue today, everyone would think she was a bit of a doormat," Vanessa Kirby says. "So figuring out how to capture the essence of what she represented to each generation, where the gender politics were different, and embody that today, was one of the greatest joys of this."
Still a red flag. Then again, it's fucking Disney and the fifth (?) swing at a Fantastic Four movie. You reach a level of red flag where extra ones don't move the needle.
it's still terrible business practice to come out and tell the customer that they don't actually own shit.
It's the only business practice. Trying to be quiet about the terms of an agreement and then spring them on people later is the worst possible thing you can do. A business ideally wants to make it as clear as possible so if it goes to trial there is no question at all. Being vague does not benefit them; the terms being crystal clear but inconvenient to read does.
This is just a really strange argument, though.
It's not. It is the way it's been at least as far back as I can remember. You own the physical disc, but only a license to access the content stored within it. Yes, you can keep using it (within the terms of the license) until it breaks. You can even sell it and transfer the media's license to someone else.
as is everything on them.
This is where you're wrong. If I owned the data on a DVD, I'd be free to copy and distribute it however I, the owner, wanted to. But you cannot. Public presentation, file sharing, etc. can violate the license.
That's like saying your car is a license, or something.
The software running in your car probably is licensed somehow. But no, tangible goods and digital media are different beasts. Though, Ferrari has tried some weird contract shit.
Anyway, we're mainly talking about games. Here's the text that appears along the top edge of Tomb Raider II for the PS1:
Licensed by Sony Computer Entertainment America for use with the PlayStation game console.
Now we can get into Fair Use and enforceability, but it's still a license. One that aims to keep you from doing anything with the media therein that the PS1 itself does not enable you to do. And yeah, things were less explicit before the disc era. The 16 bit era only had copyright notices from what I saw in my collection. It was only once you could read the media with a home PC that they got touchy about it.
Anyway, my point is that these articles should be talking about license terms and the fact that they shouldn't be revocable. Or that in the case of revocation, the customer is made whole. But people constantly finding out for the first time that digital media is licensed is tedious.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
Court of Justice of the European Union, PRESS RELEASE No 94/12, Luxembourg, 3 July 2012
An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet
The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale
Emphasis mine. The EU might have more regulation about what license terms can contain, but software is still licensed.
Well no that's not the alternative at all.
Yeah, I went a little to far with that one. Sequels, etc. would still be an issue of copyright. But if you own the disc and the contents, why can't you make 50,000 copies and give them away? It's yours, right?
This one is interesting because the expiration on the activation code suggested that it should be usable that long.
But the article is written as if it's a license vs. ownership question. Rather than a question about the license's terms. I don't know why people are HERE of all places trying to cover for fucking IGN's bad journalism.
you own the copy as long as you don't tamper with it or redistribute it for money
What do you think you call limited "ownership" with specific provisions on what you can do with the media? It's called a license. If you actually owned the contents of the disc/download, there would be no restrictions.
"limited license to access the game."
For better or worse, that is how ALL software has been for decades. And every DVD and CD. Because you don't get the rights to the song or movie. If it were not that way, and the disc was anything but a license, then you'd be the new IP owner.
Seems like every couple years, someone learns this and it's news again.
Are we including the ones that are borderline parody? Those videos making fun of romance novels made me aware of this "genre."
Bigfoot's Bride: Arranged Marriage Monster Romance
The mate-matching algorithm worked for dragon shifters, so why not try it with the sasquatch population?
Yes, there is a sasquatch population.
They live secluded from humans, known only through myths and legends—and that's how they like it!
So....
Now they want human females to join their society and become mates to the hairy beasts?
How do they plan to make that work, exactly?
Gruffydd doesn't know.
All he knows is he wants a mate of his own, even if she is small and furless.
And he'll be first in line when the women arrive.
Doesn't do it for you? There's reversed ones too:
Alone with a Female Bigfoot: Cryptid Romance
What happens when 25-year-old Tim crosses paths with a female sasquatch that is desperate to mate? Little does he know that this encounter might just trigger a primitive urge more powerful than anything he's ever experienced. Will he survive the incredibly risky situation?
"have an account"
What % of women 18-24 in the US have posted at least one image or video? Because "accounts" is even counting any that signed up to look at some celebrity's page out of curiosity.
What % of US men 18-24 "have an onlyfans account," lol.
Takamine-san is just femdom fetish material
Mato Seihei No Slave / Chained Soldier hit the same fanservice notes. And made it funny. And framed the whole thing in a way where it wasn't abusive. Takamine-san just sucks.
Hiring only "attractive servers that suit the male gaze is really alienating at least 50% of your dining population," Lilly Jan, a lecturer of food and beverage at the Nolan School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University, said in an interview.
This is a perfect example of a clueless "professional" teaching other people to be idiots. Hooters target demo is straight men. Hiring attractive servers that suit the male gaze appeals to 100% of the dining population that they are trying to appeal to. Getting rid of attractive female servers does not gain them 2x the diners. It loses them them many of the ones they currently have.
This is not rocket science.
But they're going bankrupt anyway. With nothing to lose, they should lean into the Femboy Hooters meme and see what happens.
a website is responsible for content served to a UK citizen
Why the focus on VPNs? If that statement is accurate, then no website can detect if content is served to a UK citizen traveling abroad. Which would make even blacklisting the entire UK and all known VPNs insufficient. Which is probably the interpretation they're hoping for.
...we will permit UK BitChute users to continue to post content. The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK.
That's some pretty decent malicious compliance. I'm sure Ofcom will respond with some new laws to block making speech online instead of just observing it.
Back in 1984 a guy named Bernhard Goetz did.
Shot 4 of them on the subway. All survived, one was paralyzed. NYC threw the book at him. Acquitted on everything but a couple of gun charges. Served 8 months in the end.
Then, New York being a garbage dump, one of the perpetrators sued him, got a half-Black jury, pulled an OJ by trying to make a big deal out of "prior racist comments," and won a $43m judgement.
Compare this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL4mbWb2NkI?t=20
With this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
Building new workflows around purpose-built robots is so much more efficient.
Here, have a chart: https://www.crews.bank/charts/inflation-vs-stocks
humanoid robotics, which Tan said has the ability to redefine manufacturing
Redefine into shit? Manufacturing is the area where humanoid robots make the LEAST sense. Humanoid robots are useful when you need a robot to operate in an existing environment designed for humans. In a factory, you can control the entire environment. Application-specific automation will always beat humanoid robots.
The only caveat is if they somehow became cheap enough because you can do the design once and stick them everywhere, whereas a task-specific machine needs to be designed per-task. I suppose they're more interchangeable as well, but they're still shit for scale.
Yeah, they could afford it. These are old 2012 numbers but at that time it was:
51% profit
33% components
14% other costs
2% manufacturing (the $10 he's talking about)
They could easily deal with US manufacturing costs. The unfortunate part is nearly all the components would still be foreign-made.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said that makes the difference between if the license can be revoked or not.
You don't own the software on the disk. If you did, you could freely copy it. Maybe there are some countries render the license terms null, but we're not talking about the exceptions.
We can talk all day about digital distribution and how it's a very consumer-unfriendly environment. I've said it several times already, but people prefer to read in things I didn't write. The conversation should be about what are reasonable license terms for software, not the "OMG, CAN YOU BELIEVE A COURT SAID SOFTWARE IS JUST A LICENCE?!" clickbait. It turns uninformed readers into a smokescreen that prevents actual discussion about things like the lack of first-sale, forced arbitration, general EULA enforceability, etc.