Filetternavn

joined 8 months ago

Correct, this case (as far as I'm aware) is only about modification. I simply mentioned distribution and derivative works to talk about libre licenses like GPL being different than what the court case is about

[–] Filetternavn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I don't see a reason to have a preference for a specific geographic region to not be influenced by fascism. Fascism should not be instituted anywhere, in any scenario. Unfortunately, it's on the rise globally, and I'd personally prefer it not be present anywhere at all, not just in an area in which it has had previous influence.

[–] Filetternavn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

No, copyright holders have the right to provide permission for modification and distribution of their copyrighted material. That includes providing conditions for that permission, such as requiring the derivative to hold the same license (like GPL). This is a case where the copyright holder is not explicitly providing those rights, so it is a completely different scenario.

[–] Filetternavn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 241 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

This is truly dystopian. A ruling in Springer's favor here could imply that modifying anything on a webpage, even without distribution, would constitute a copyright violation (EDIT: only for material in which the copyright holder does not grant permission for the modification; so not libre licensed projects). Screen readers for blind people could be illegal, accessibility extensions for high contrast for those visually impaired could become illegal, even just extensions that change all websites to dark mode like Dark Reader could become illegal. What constitutes modification? Would zooming in on a website become illegal? Would translating a website to a different language become illegal? Where does this end?

This needs to be shot down.

[–] Filetternavn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Moot point, as DoorDash driver accounts require a verified driver's license, comprehensive background check, and a valid bank account set up to deposit payment (though after setting up a direct deposit bank account, you can add alternative cash out options). Haven't used DoorDash in a while, but UberEats started requiring facial recognition on top of all that, so I wouldn't be surprised if that were in the DoorDash driver app, too. Hiding IP would do quite literally nothing in this scenario, as you can't create an account anonymously. Counterfeit IDs would not work as they are verified against state records. Oh, and yet another step, you have to provide proof of auto insurance, which is yet another connection to your identity.