bitfucker

joined 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

You jest but it can happen when what the docs says doesn't reflect the implementation. And also, that's what we call bugs.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nothing comes to mind. DRM literally means digital rights management and unless you wanted to be petty, like blocking a certain person from using your app, then DRM for something free is not something that I can think of a use case for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Enforcing payment comes to mind without resorting to in-app purchase or any account creation. A lot of desktop software is a good example of those. Sure, you can still have cracks and whatnot, but then again, that's not the point. Might as well ask what is the point of Denuvo. That is a whole other discussion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Yes, that's my point. Android "doesn't" have to use Google Play Store, but it is convenient. Other store fronts exist like F-droid and many vendor specific one. Google just provide the DRM mechanism like steam does provide DRM via steamworks

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (5 children)

What I mean by that is, this is just an API/SDK for app developers to use. Google does not enforce the use of such things. Much like steam does not force the use of their drm for example (please note the difference between the marketplace and the drm). App developers can always choose how they make and distribute their app.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 days ago (11 children)

Ehh, this is basically just another form of DRM. No different than you having a Steam and GOG model. You can make your apps using DRM and enforce certain constraints

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Sometimes you just can't guess the domain name of a company you know. Also, it doesn't help that most companies website are fucking nightmare to navigate so having the relevant page on the first click is nice too

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hmmm, yeah it gets harder to associate it with physical reality when user generated content is introduced. Maybe an archival of said content is mandated but then again, who is going to serve the archive. In the case of youtube, it would be almost impossible

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Huh, the difference is that a website is not akin to a public park but privately owned park with or without entrance fee. The owner is nice enough to open the park and let you do whatever you want for free with the cleaning and maintenance is paid by the owner, but when the park is closed, would you still say the owner should still be forced to maintain it?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah, but as you said, it is highly dependent on the implementation. Theoretically it is possible that the user is also seeding the previously downloaded/streamed chunk (via WebRTC for example if using a browser). That reminds me of a madlad that stores data on a ping packet (see suckerpinch channel on youtube, specifically his video titled "Harder Drive")

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Alright, will check it out

view more: next ›