The FCC has no jurisdiction over cable TV, Satellite TV, or streaming providers. Only over the air broadcasts are regulated by the FCC.
Any source on this? Wikipedia says the opposite:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an agency of the United States federal government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, internet, Wi-Fi, satellite, and cable across the United States.
And he does so by providing a stand-alone binary and providing integration into the games by using their modding tools. At least that was my, admittedly unresearched, understanding of the matter.
If what you say was true it would be an open-and-shut case meaning Ross could have immediately filed a DMCA counter-notice (i.e. legally asserting that no copyrighted material was used) because he wouldn’t have anything to lose. But he didn’t do that. My guess would be because he did in fact use REDmod plugins to make his VR mod binary viable to actually play.
But I’m admittedly guessing here, any source you want to provide to the contrary would be welcome.
There are, called REDmod: https://www.cyberpunk.net/en/modding-support
From what I understand the Cyberpunk VR mod is partially made up of REDmod plugins and partially of stand-alone binaries, but not sure on that one.
Yeah true, but actually proving that in court costs time and money. And once you get a DMCA takedown notice you are forced to fight it or comply.
I don’t understand how this is legal action?
Well just the use of the trademark would probably be enough to file a DMCA takedown. But beyond that modding the game entails using its modding tools, which have an EULA, which stipulates no paywalls for mods.
Technically the modder has legal recourse, they could argue fair use and file a counter-notice. Then CDPR would have to sue in front of a court. But given the financial and legal risks it seems unlikely a counter-notice will happen.
Honestly the only real chance is to come to some kind of agreement with CDPR, which they seemed to heavily telegraph is possible in their public message (“we never allow monetization of our IP without our direct permission and/or an agreement in place”).
Why do they want to own it?
Because they are fascists and the US fascists have been envisioning this expansion since at least 1940:
This lines up pretty much exactly with the all the territorial threats and claims Trump has made:
All on there. Not sure if I missed any, he threatened so many over the last year.
But yeah, they essentially envision an American continent dominated by the US in a Monroe doctrine on steroids, which Trump unironically called the “Donroe doctrine” the other day. They are telling you they are fascists to your face in every way short of actually saying the word out loud. It’s about resources and territory.
“Die rechtliche Einordnung des US-Einsatzes ist komplex. Dazu nehmen wir uns Zeit”
“Der mutmaßliche Einbruch bei meinem Nachbarn und seine angebliche Entführung sind komplex. Ich habe das zwar alles auf Video aber bis zur gerichtlichen Einordnung gilt natürlich auch hier die Unschuldsvermutung. Dazu nehmen wir uns Zeit.”
Ja nee ist klar… Echt kompliziert das ganze. Wieder so ein Tag wo man nicht so viel fressen kann wie man kotzen möchte. Die Reaktionen der anderen Länder und der EU sind genau so schlimm, keiner lässt es sich nehmen zu sagen wie schlimm denn der Maduro war und wie gut das der weg ist. Kaum ein Wort über den offenen Völkerrechtsbruch.
Außer in dem einen Tagesschau-Artikel gestern war ein schöner Seitenhieb in etwa “so und so verurteilte die Menschenrechtsverletzungen (der Maduro-Regierung, Anm. der Redaktion)…”. Da musste ich schon kurz lachen.
Well the rationale is that they were announcing live to the world (and therefore also the website owner) that “all your base are belong to us”. So instead of giving the website owner time to fix their flawed IT security they just deleted all the infected systems at the end of the talk (including some backups and admin accounts).
Well that’s probably true. I mean lots of stuff was obviously hacked and deleted, and if you trust the script output in the stream mostly from whitedate. child and deal are later off-shoots it seems, but date had like 6k users, some paying, the main project basically. And it’s still offline. And whitedeal shows a 2019 copyright notice. :D
There was an interactive map of the user profiles hosted by the hacker at https://okstupid.lol/ but it seems to be down right now. And the journalists who participated in the talk (and pointedly left before the script was run) announced there will be more articles released soon.
Could be the site owner is in the process of restoring access, the talk (and thus the deletion) happened on 29th of December.
Are they? For me the website has a Cloudflare captcha leading into a 404: https://whitedate.net/
After the talk it had a rick-roll embed for some time. :D
Der zweite Link oben hat den Zeitstempel.
Unclear to me, but I would assume sending poisoned data would be far more attractive than cancelling the agreement for either side. Until there are open hostilities at least.
I’m saying they are tracking everyone they can, which is just about… everyone. Even if you do the best you can with encryption everywhere, running your traffic through proxies, and whatnot, your communications are still likely to be saved until decryption algorithms/compute catches up. Nevermind metadata which is probably all that would be needed to identify the average Lemmy account.
Do border agents have access to that? Probably not directly, but I would presume any visa application to be routed through intelligence services. And while those may not have reported a missing social media account before, you know with that not being a requirement at all, they sure might under this administration.
I didn’t ignore it. It specifically means states can’t make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for.
The part you ignored is where international treaties are called “International Law”, and “supreme Law of the Land”; They are therefore a law in a general sense of the word. As in “a piece of text defining rules of conduct”.
Also they are ratified by Congress (the Senate specifically), and are enforced by the contracting parties inside their own jurisdictions; So they are technically equivalent to a federal law (not just in the US, in most jurisdictions I’m aware of), insofar as de jure they have to be treated like one by the executive and judicial branches. So not sure why you are even trying to make up this distinction without a difference here.
But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention.
Yeah I ignored that because it’s irrelevant and also incorrect. The US ratified Protocol III from 2005.
So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified.
The rule in question is derived from Article 12 of the Second Geneva Convention from 1949, which the US also ratified. Also you seem to be suggesting that the DoD released a manual discussing rules which don’t apply to them, which seems bonkers.
Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it.
Not how this works. If you want to no longer be bound by a contract you cancel it. The US did not do so. They could, but they did not.
So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.
To you maybe.
Isn’t it linked to your name though? Like, you think your OPSEC is good enough for the Five Eyes not to know who is behind your Lemmy account? Kind of doubt it honestly…
Right, just ignore that “treaties” are “the supreme Law of the Land”, which was the entire point of this quote.
International treaties are in fact of the same rank as federal law and the constitution in the US as per this article, which is even broader then the mere “ratified treaties are law” statement I made earlier, which I was trying to prove here after you called me stupid and confidently incorrect for it.
Dude, at this point let us just agree to disagree, because from my point of view you seem impervious to reason; As I probably do from yours. So let’s just cut our losses and part amicably. Good bye.
I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. […]
The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them.
Oh yeah? Well the constitution seems to disagree with you (article VI):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.
Huh.
It being law in the US is highly questionable.
What? How so? Do you not know how international law works? The US legislature ratified it, which makes it a law in the US.
But again, the op wasn’t talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual.
What law do you think the “Law of War” manual is referring to? It’s the Geneva Convention.
And while the manual is “A” interpretation of international law, it isn’t the only one. So he can’t be tried for going against the manual.
This is getting a bit silly. The manual is basically all former US administrations since the ratification of the Geneva Convention specifically stating that what the current US administration did is a war crime under it. Since at the time of the incident the Geneva Convention was applicable (as it still is now since the US didn’t withdraw from it) the people involved in the incident could be tried under it, possibly by the next administration.
If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn’t what the post was about.
That is exactly what the post was about. What the hell are you talking about?
Weiß ich jetzt nicht ob die meisten menschlichen Künstler sich getraut hätten der AfD da ein KZ in die Innenstadt zu malen, zumal bei einem öffentlichen Auftrag und so…