FriendOfDeSoto

Is there something wrong with making a new account to make a discussion post about a video?

If the video is from a platform whose algorithm thrives on controversy, is presented in a context of controversy, on a new account, it’s at least suspicious here on the lemmyverse.

So you’ve been thinking about joining the fediverse but it was this video you wanted to share with us that finally made you pull the trigger? It’s a sequence of events I find inherently sus.

Is this not a forum website?

Yes, it is. And as such it is sometimes abused by people with ulterior motives.

This is ridiculous behavior.

That is both your prerogative to think so and a matter of opinion.

I’ve been respectful and open to every single person I’ve responded to. I am not creating drama or name calling.

Your eagerness to engage virtually any comment on this niche subject is what I find suspicious. It’s the eagerness you also see by people who abuse Lemmy for rage bait.

If there’s drama being created on this post, it’s because people can’t stand Mutahar. And I agree with them! But as someone who refuses to be an ideologue living in an echo chamber, I watch content from sources I don’t agree with too, and I discuss it. I don’t get what problem you have with this.

I don’t know who that is and don’t care enough to find out. I refer you to my criticism of the source of the video. My suspicion, which I have to say your comments have not diminished, is that you created this account and this persona to generate more views to feed the algorithm on YouTube and not because you wanted to have a serious discussion about the subject.

Correction: so you made a new account on this instance and then posted it.

I’m just spit balling here. Is it possible that the intent of this post is not to have a discussion about OSs but to boost the YouTube views? It’s just a vibe I’m getting. New account, very eager to reply, posting this out of the blue.

If the video is on YouTube, they make a thumbnail pulling a dumb face, and it gets presented in a forum like this with a whiff of controversy about it, personally, I’ll refuse to look at it.

I can’t remember. As you can tell from my lengthy historical summary, I’m old enough to use that as an excuse.

I have recorded songs off the radio onto cassette. I have made mix tapes. First off records, later CDs. There was a general trade going on at school among friends. Somebody would get a new album on tape or on CD and when the owner had listened to it enough times it would make the rounds so people could record it for themselves. Musical socialism.

I have made Minidisc mix tapes as well. I went as far as recording concerts from VHS onto Minidisc. Adding track names was harder than T9 texting and took fucking ages.

I ripped and burned CDs, some of them are still stashed away in an attic somewhere.

I don’t remember the infancy torrenting service that we used around the turn of the century. It wasn’t Napster. I also made mix tapes of downloaded songs onto CD. To play more easily because there weren’t any iPods yet but everyone had a stereo.

Now I stream the music I used to steal. Can’t feel great about it because I know the artists get next to nothing for it.

I miss having a good stereo. Now it’s crappy phone speakers or compressed Bluetooth shit.

I’m not an Apple user so I cannot answer your question there. I just wanted to add another way to get ad-free podcasts. If the podcast offers a patreon feed, any RSS-based podcatcher anywhere will be able to do this.

Seconded! LMMS is a good free DAW to get started.

but nobody is discussing this initiative

Well, go ahead. Discuss it. I don’t know what it is.

No. This is how the legal system works. When you appeal to a higher court, they can make a call themselves when massive mistakes were made at the lower level or they can say the lower court overlooked something and then make them redo their work. It’s a convenient choice for the higher judges not to have to do more work themselves. But it’s part of the process.

Loosely defined legal terms. A “computer program” can be copyrighted. You can write your own that does the same thing but you cannot copy the other code and slap your label on it. With a lot of imagination and bending the words of the shitty outdated law, you could say a website is also a “computer program.” You cannot just go into the code and change it, e.g. by blocking ads. The lower court ruling didn’t take this possible interpretation into account and now has to rule again with this in mind. Nothing’s been decided yet. We’re running a little hot in this thread on misleading headlines.

You would be building it on pretty much the same legal foundations. So it will just be history repeating.

Let’s take a deep breath and consider what’s happened. The Federal Court of Justice has sent the case back to the lower court. They have not ruled on anything. They have not said ad blocking is piracy. They have essentially said: lower court, you had 25 boxes to tick but you only ticked 24 in your ruling. Go back and do one that ticks all of them.

It’s entirely possible that the lower court will change its ruling based on the intricacies of German copyright law, which is shit. But it’s not very likely if you ask me. Regardless, whoever loses will appeal it again. This rodeo is far from over. And when it’s eventually over the technology will have moved on, with any luck the law along with it, and the only beneficiaries will have been the lawyers.

So the headline should read more like “German court does not rule out that ad blocking could be a copyright infringement.”

The argument that Axel Springer is just doing it for their love of democracy is also comical. Media pluralism is important, I agree with them that far, but they are stuck in an outdated mindset. They launched a silly tabloid Fox News wannabe TV channel and failed. They are trying to force eyeballs on their content like you are at a news agent. Meanwhile, news is happening on TikTok and so-called AI is going to reduce their page views to dust. By the time we get a final ruling they will have pivoted strategy 10 times to keep the c-suite in caviar while the established media business that made them successful is rotting away under their assess.