zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
Every day we stray farther from the premise that we should be allowed to install / modify software on the computers we own.

Will once again re-up the concept of a “right to root access”, to prevent big corps from pulling this bs over and over again: https://medhir.com/blog/right-to-root-access

>>medhir+Lg1
The question really isn't whether we should be able to modify computers we own, its whether we own them at all.

>>_heimd+Cj1
regardless of what the corporations say we do own the devices we purchase.

>>yesbut+Ak1
Not always. There have been car manufacturers that sold vehicles with features only enabled by a subscription. You may buy a car with heated seats, but the heated seats only work if the manufacturer enables them.

>>_heimd+Nl1
And there should be no law against enabling the heated seats in the car you own without interacting with the manufacturer.

>>Anthon+Im1
Too bad there is one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

>>alexvi+eo1
Laws can be interpreted in such a way that invites robber barons to pound sand, or repealed.

>>Anthon+Zo1
Considering the same law is used to strike a 3 hour GPU documentary over a ~30 second clip, I think it serves to corporate pretty well.

GamersNexus' 3 hour documentary about GPU smuggling (which is way more than a vlog as HN commenters like to portray) is struck down by Bloomberg because they didn't want their 30 second clip, which is squarely fair use BTW, of POTUS speaking to be in that. GamersNexus repealed successfully, but Bloomberg tried to bully them [0].

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUnRWh4xOCY

>>bayind+2x1
I don't understand why people think this is something corporations desperately want. It's something they'll abuse if you leave it sitting around for that, but that's just the argument for getting rid of it. How does the ability to be a petulant grouch benefit them? It has negligible monetary value and causes PR damage. It's a footgun that nobody needs and only fools want.

And if they're actually the cartoon villains it would imply, rather than just banal petty autocrats carelessly fooling around with a toy they deserve to have taken away from them, then we should maybe less be saying "it makes sense that they would want it this way" and more be sticking their heads in a guillotine so we can show the children the proper way to resolve a dispute with a tyrant.

In neither case should a law like that remain on the books.

>>Anthon+pM1
Looks like it's complicated. The video has some theories.

- Bloomberg has a similar investigation which is deeply undercut by GamersNexus video. GN seen the labs, Bloomberg got their access revoked, so theirs is an empty video, and they want the views.

- The video holds no punches back about anyone, and Bloomberg has an NVIDIA sponsored section dedicated to them.

- There's no other source which recorded POTUS' words, and maybe they don't want these words to be widely available, video argues.

- Lastly, they wanted a licensing fee for that 30 seconds to leave their videos alone.

So, when you're a beancounting billionaire corporation, you can have the reasons to go after a bearded guy who manages to do a better job and make you look bad.

Because, monies.

>>bayind+kN1
That's precisely the "petty autocrats carelessly abusing a footgun" scenario. They've made themselves look bad for negligible benefit while harming innocent people. It's the argument for taking it away from them.