The only relevant part is the fact that it's impossible for the discussion to entitle them to information. That's the ruling that's the core point of the article and it prevents any other meaningful potential precedents from being set, because the case can't get to ruling on them.
conciselyverbose
joined 1 year ago
It is exclusively about the discussion. If discussion doesn't entitle them to any information, that's the end of everything. They have no path to proceed in a case or get a ruling on anything else without that barrier being destroyed.
They have many ways to harass both users and companies if it is. It's the only line that means anything. There can't be any precedent set on anything else without that being trampled.
The important legal concept is that it's literally impossible for discussion of piracy to entitle them to any information in any possible context.
The target of their harassment does not matter. Giving them a single bit of data is every bit as unconditionally unacceptable in either case, and you don't get to any ruling on anything else unless you bypass that.
That's not a meaningful distinction.
They're still trying to take action against discussion of piracy. The target does not matter and is not meaningful to the discussion.
That's not really extra nuance, and is about discussing piracy.
The premise that an ISP has an obligation to proactively monitor traffic when they shouldn't even legally be permitted to do so is disgusting.
Harassing specific devs may mean those devs don't push back, but being open source means anyone else hosting it can trivially counter claim bullshit DMCA nonsense.
It doesn't take any tech literacy. There's no infringement and precedent out the ass that things far closer to the line are legal. There's no need for a novel interpretation of anything. The project doesn't contain their IP.
I'm willing to bet your Walmart underwear will be grimier in six months than regularly correctly laundered higher quality underwear far older.
Nintendo can't get emulators that actually are for the primary purpose of bypassing their restrictions (even if doing so on legitimately purchased games is perfectly legal) shut down, and this company thinks they can close a fucking reader because it's possible some people might use it with pirated copies of their IP?🤣
51.3 TFLOPSvs19.66 TFLOPS
Performance is more complicated than that, but nvidia has always had real world performance that punched above the flop to flop comparison with AMD. Those are not the same class of card.
My concern is that something I could trust would need to have a well structured organization running it (as is the case for plenty of other open source projects), and I think it would be difficult for such an organization to successfully manage such a project with all the laws all over the world about medical devices and devices implanted inside of people.
I'd absolutely prefer the actual interface being as limited as possible, with any actual signal processing or other chips being outside or at least surface level. But I just think it would be hard to navigate medical laws (which exist for good reason).
I would think about genuinely completely open source (at every level, all software tooling needed, etc. The regulatory issues would obviously make that super hard though.
There absolutely isn't a company I'd trust with that.
Because even though it's obviously perfect legal, getting harassed by corporations over a hobby project is a pain in the ass.