I havent used many instances but I’ve never used one which didn’t have a mobile site.

Idk why people want to use apps to begin with. They love to be hacked or spyed on? I just don’t get it.

A mobile browser for phone a desktop browser for desktop.

Idk why anybody would actually want a third party app that is so insecure.

I like Lemmy, I like that the ratio of tankie scum to normal person is decreasing, but I really don’t like people who worship Luigi.

It fucking matters that the lemmy main code contributors are Tankie scum. The less power they exert over the whole, the better.

You can just browse lemmy in a mobile browser like waterfox just fine…

Why would anybody want to install unnecessary third party apps? That sounds awful.

Honestly the Tankie presence on lemmy is kind of a shit experience. But its shit that doesn’t sell your data so I’m cool with it.

Lmao Sam Altman doesn’t want tbe rules chanhed for you. He wants it changed for him.

You will still be beholden to the laws.

You’re an absolute buffoon if you think any Republican would remove the rules for everybody instead of just themselves.

Let’s Eat, Grandma!

Let’s Eat Grandma!

The importance of the comma.

To be clear, this isn’t a discussion about removing copyright laws. This is a discussion about specifically big data collecting tech companies being immune to the laws which still apply to everyone else.

Now that I think about it, cars could totally add a slot for SIM cards and be a phone and roaming wifi if they wanted to.

There used to be a concern of lights draining a car battery preventing it from starting the ignition, but nowadays all the lights are LED so it’s many times more efficient.

Depending on the monetization scheme that might be a nice change of pace.

I wonder which game mechanics of the sims titles are patented as of today.

Is it gonna be similar to second life or something?

It’s not deeper than “we know how they work” which was the point I was making. I admit I gave am oversimplified layman’s explanation but it is not deeper than that.

I hate this interpretation of black box algorithms.

We know how they work. It isn’t magic. We intentionally built them to be the way that they are.

What we don’t know is precisely which outputs you get from a large combinations of inputs, because it would require memorizing entire databases and simulating results as a weird form of mental math, and how we score things will be impacted by interpersonal biases even if we attempted that.

It’s crazy how I can post the literal actual text of the law and a link to it and you can just ignore that and say it isn’t what it is.

Why? Did the nVidia 30 series and the AMD already run out? I’ve never had issues buying cards that can run almost every game at 60 to 120 fps.

Right, so the owners have their rights enshrined in laws to make copies, sales, and derivatives, but that doesn’t mean people other than owners are breaking a law by downloading a copy that a third party made and distributed. In fact, that text alone doesn’t make it illegal to make copies, derivatives, or distributions, that would instead be outlined in U.S Code Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 506 which says:

§506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement.—

(1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence.—For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition.—In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means—

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution—

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture—

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b) Forfeiture, Destruction, and Restitution.—Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution relating to this section shall be subject to section 2323 of title 18, to the extent provided in that section, in addition to any other similar remedies provided by law.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.—Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.—Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation.—Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2586; Pub. L. 97–180, §5, May 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 93; Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, §606(b), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5131; Pub. L. 105–147, §2(b), Dec. 16, 1997, 111 Stat. 2678; Pub. L. 109–9, title I, §103(a), Apr. 27, 2005, 119 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 110–403, title II, §201(a), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4260.)

As with your quote from the FAQ, the entire section says:

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney’s fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many “authorized” services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights’ testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Statutory Damages are civil. Risk of liability for downloads means it isn’t certain. There are no criminal proceedings for downloading copyrighted media, it isn’t illegal.

In fact, it’s actually even more lenient than I had expected, you STILL don’t qualify for criminal charges even if you cost the real copyright owner $999.99.