You buy the license mate. Isn't it how it always is? Isn't it why we call the good ol days license keys? Because we buy those license keys. The problem is not the word "buy" or "purchase" being used. The problem is DRM as its true meaning. Digital Rights Management. How would you enforce a sale of offline single player license keys? When you don't have the keys anymore, you should also uninstall the game. But would you? Hence the need for online DRM. The problem now is that companies don't like it when you resell those licenses and since it is their IP and their right, they can enforce that too with online drm. I am not saying the current state of affairs is good by any means. I am stating how we all came here in the first place. We do need a law for more consumer protection regarding the sale of digital goods. Or fuck, any law regarding digital things. Our law hasn't caught up much with the advancement of technology

People who knows

"What if the test fail?"

*Write a test for the test

Wasn't it skyrim?

Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling.

Fair point. The explanation itself has to be detached from the license to make it clear. So for example, if I state that my comment here is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, it only states the license, WHY I licensed it as such is the explanation and not the label for the license. So yeah, without context (the why), it is mislabeling.

While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter.

But that is true for all content on the internet no? The difference is this time we are talking about a user-generated content without explicit license, now has an explicit license.

As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.

I wouldn't call it useless tho. After all, we will only push the legal framework because people are doing something wack.

Adorkable face indeed

For facebook and big corporations, you usually agree to the ToS/EULA before you actively using their services. The clause there usually protects their ass by stating you give them the license to basically do whatever the fuck they want. Sometimes even giving up the copyright entirely, like some CLA when contributing to open source projects.

But lemmy, as far as I remember, don't have such term. So it is an interesting question since if the instance doesn't impose a legal requirement for you to give the instance a license to do anything besides storing and serving it verbatim (like many other user-content sites. deviantart comes to mind since the user can license their image iirc). And yes, words or a string of words can be copyrighted and licensed because we do have protection for books and other text material.

What he probably means is that for a "photo", an actual act of photography must be performed. While "artwork" can be fully digital. Now, legal definition aside, the two acts are indeed different even if the resulting "image" is a bit-by-bit equivalent. A computer could just output something akin to a photograph but no actual act of photography has taken place. I said the legal definition aside because I know the legal definition only looks at the resulting image. Just trying to convey the commenter words better.

Edit to clarify a few things.

It would be funny if that happens since the EU is having problems with Russia too. Will Russia help the EU (by proving that America is not as powerful as they'd like to think) or take advantage of the situation I wonder.

I thought you were hallucinating, but apparently the mod has something with Brad I guess

Makoto Shinkai did it

(P.S: Don't take it too seriously)