Drug testing around childbirth is a wreck and needs to be seriously looked into...
My second son was premature... when we were in the NICU... there was a lady there, whos child was born premature because the taxi she was riding in from the airport was involved in an accident. She came from california... where her gyno was pro-mj, and she used MJ to manage her Hyperemesis gravidarum... so its in her system, clearly... but this is Texas... so even though her doc recommended it, not only was her child in the NICU, but when he got out, he didnt get to go home with her... because of stupid laws that pay no mind to actual scientific evidence...
So what makes me so special that I can do that, but others cant? To say that some external thing predestined me to success in that moment, where others were to fail, is to take away my efforts to succeed.
The internet isn't a right. Cable TV isn't a right. I feel like I'm repeating myself lately, but why is there so much entitlement lately?
If you want better, do better. If you want nice things, bust your ass. If your town doesn't have what you want, move. Don't tell me it cant be done. I was laid off twice in 2 years, my credit and savings wiped out from underneath me. With a wife and 2 kids... being the sole provider. I could have settled and got a local job that paid nothing and complained about being poor, but I didnt. I scraped what little I had and I moved myself and my family to a place that offered the opportunities I needed.
I had to live in Oklahoma along the way, until i could find a better job, but i did, and it sucked, but i did it until I found a job and a place to live and now im writing this in a nice apartment with gigabit internet.
I was literally down to $1200 and no place to live... anyone can save up $1200... stop expecting people to make life easy for you. Men used to be men, and handled stuff... now men sit on their ass and wait for life to get easy...
The article may be biased (I'm in agreement, spin zone) but the policy change on Virus Total's part is real news. With all the security people around HN I'm not surprised to see that people want to discuss it.
I think the reply would be... why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn't create, in the first place?
You had the choice to stop watching... and thats the only legal choice. To pretend that doing something illegal because you feel entitled to it is right, thats a little bit... childish?
Illegal is not immoral; copyright is a legal construct designed to reward content creators for their works for a limited period of time before it enters the public domain. Our history, culture, and heritage is a fabric of works created by individuals that enter the public consciousness. If you co-opt culture and won't offer it to people through legitimate means, don't be surprised if they go to the frictionless and better value proposition of copying information from the internet without permission.
No, thats not at all what it is. There are regulatory and legal reasons why netflix content (even specific content) isnt available everywhere. Its not discriminatory.
Its simple entitlement. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it about some kind of discriminatory issue. A business has to have licences to operate in a country, there are many stipulations and there is a cost involved with those stipulations, netflix has no oblication to jump through legal hurdles and pay more money so everyone can enjoy their content.
I work for a global company - one who works in the digital realm and makes AAA games... trust me, I deal with these things. You'd be surprised the effort for a US company to sell their product/service in china...
I am not surprised at all, and I am not asking anything from Netflix, like I explained earlier. I was on sell side too, and I know that resolving international legal hurdles is not the most exciting thing in life (I lived and worked in 6 countries).
But this only means that international law is a mess, and have to be repealed/updated. It won't happen soon, unless there will be more and more people willingfully breaking the law, as they are damn right to feel "entitled" to equal service, which can be delivered by config option. Technically, it is not a big deal. If it is a huge legal deal, the laws be damned.
And Netflix and your AAA-titles-producing company both have no moral right to legally harass people who can't possibly buy your things and have to copy them for free, of course. What "damage" they are bringing to you, if you can't get any money from them anyway?
I bet people like Rosa Parks, MLK, etc... people who paid dearly for Equal rights would be so upset that you've lowered the meaning of that word to simple movies...
Being treated differently, being cast aside and being held back from success because of your race, that you cant change, that you had no control of aquiring - is nowhere near not being able to watch a movie because of legal restrictions of where you live. How do you possibly consider those things even remotely similar?
Rosa Parks couldn't ride the bus based on the color of her skin.
In fact, there were sit-ins in "white only" movie theaters, because some people weren't accepted here even if they were able to pay. It's not that they didn't have the option to just not watch the movie, right?
Back then, white people were responding to just accusations exactly the same way — "come on, it's _just_ the bus ride! it's just the movie! what's the big deal?"
I can't easily come to live where I want — visa issues. This is discrimination by nationality, exactly the same as discrimination by skin color. And part of this big discrimination is my inability to watch the movie based on the place where I live.
>Being treated differently [...] because of _, that you cant change, that you had no control of [...] is nowhere near not being able to [...] because of _, [that you cant change, that you had no control of]. How do you possibly consider those things even remotely similar?
Pragmatically, though, it is not a big deal. Here in Switzerland, I am content to pay 2x price for the same content as in the US — we have to support our reputation as the most expensive country on Earth, after all :) In India, one can attempt to sell software and content for the same price as in US, but it won't generate any sales. The pragmatic option is to sell Indian-localized software for low price, and English versions for original price, which is already working perfectly well for software and everyone is happy. Both me and an Indian girl can buy any US-made software. At least it was possible when the software was downloaded or delivered physically — software in app stores are becoming subject to the same shitty policies as the rest of digital content.
The world is becoming increasingly global, but policymakers and copyright holders try to isolate us in nation state borders.
Because people at other countries can pay and see the content freely, but we foreigners can't do it, no matter if we want to pay for it. Netflix just says to us: "sorry, we don't want your _kind_ here. Keep your money and go somewhere else". (I am also in Switzerland).
Technically, if you own a restaurant, you can refuse to serve anyone, they are not entitled to your food and service. But try to selectively refuse service to African Americans, or gays, or Canadians, or Swiss, or all non-Americans, and see where this road will lead you and how much time you'll get until first lawsuit.
Because for netflix to provide a service to you in your country, there is often legal hurdles in doing so... If you think netflix's motivation is "lets keep these people out because we want to" ... you're not very smart. Netflix will gladly take money from anyone willing to give it, assuming they can legally do so without higher costs to them that outweigh the gain. No business turns down customers if they dont have to.
I am not blaming Netflix. I even don't blame corporations holding the copyright, as they'd also want to sell as much as possible. I blame international copyright law, which at this point amounts to outright discrimination, not unlike racial discrimination laws some decades ago.
If history is any teacher, it is impossible to fight immoral discriminatory laws legally. Peaceful protest works much better. So, go pirate, history and truth are on our side.
Copyright law is so unbelievably out of touch with reality that is difficult to understand how we got into this mess. We have evolved to have perfect memories and instant access to information through the invention of personal computing devices and the internet and yet laws are attempting the suppress the impact that these inventions have so that the people with wealth can continue to gain more wealth. The best interest of the public is the last thing on any ones mind which is somewhat ironic since "the public good" is supposed to be the objective of any law put in place.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
>why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn't create, in the first place?
Because it has been published, therefore it is public. 'Publish' is literally a verb that means 'to make available to the public'. And 'public' is literally an adjective that means 'open to or shared by all people'. Of course people have a right to access public things. Why would you feel otherwise? Do you feel guilty when you go to a public park because you didn't create the land? Do you feel the urge to surrender yourself to the police because you walked on a public sidewalk that you didn't create?
Copyright grants special privileges to an author so that they can be compensated for their work, in hopes that this will encourage people to publish things. If you refuse to use your privileges, that's your choice, you decided not to get paid. The public is still entitled to keep the gift that you gave them.
Where it gets ugly is that copyright declares that copying or transmitting something (even something already public) is itself an act of publication, and only the author is allowed to determine who may republish their work for awhile. So redistributing without permission is not allowed. But it has been published and therefore the public does still have a right to access it if it is available, they just don't have the right to republish it.
Which leads to the issue here. What is the correct result if something is public, and the public has every right to access it, but can't exercise that right because it's not available? In theory, the author should take advantage of their copyright privileges to get some money from the public in exchange for access. That would be a win-win, leaving everybody happy!
In the past, that could be difficult due to printing and shipping and international trade difficulties and various other legitimate problems. But today's tech makes it relatively trivial, cheap, and convenient to sell digital files online globally. So if the author chooses not to do so, then in the eyes of the public, the author has opted out of their copyright privilege, they have forfeited. It is a public thing that should be open to free access, since the author has chosen not to accept payment for access. Of course, that's not what the law says yet, but that's already what people believe is correct, reasonable, and ethical.
Authors who attempt to suppress access to public things, or make it unreasonably difficult and expensive to do so, or bully people who try to access them, are in the wrong, and they will lose eventually. That is an unethical and immoral stance, and it is an abuse of copyright, not in keeping with its intent.
Where is this drive to create dumb languages coming from? I dont mean dumb in the opinionated way, i mean, dumb in the way of "its hard to write proper code that follows rules, quoting and commas are hard" ... ... ... if quotes, commas and escaping is hard for you, you dont need to be an engineer....
Everyone, including the author, is missing the point of lets plays...
They aren't monetizing the game... the game is largely secondary... i find myself (and others i've asked today about this) tend to follow youtubers or streamers, not games. Its the personalities that earn the revenue, the game is just a talking piece...
He did specifically call out Let's Plays that just run through the game with little to no commentary. Though I suspect those might have less views than ones from the more popular streamers.
