On the basis of technicality, it will depend very wildly on the ToC of said intellectual property. As you said, GOG just distributes the installer and that is it, the IP holder can technically revoke your/GOG license if that is in the ToC somewhere.
Nothing comes to mind. DRM literally means digital rights management and unless you wanted to be petty, like blocking a certain person from using your app, then DRM for something free is not something that I can think of a use case for.
Enforcing payment comes to mind without resorting to in-app purchase or any account creation. A lot of desktop software is a good example of those. Sure, you can still have cracks and whatnot, but then again, that’s not the point. Might as well ask what is the point of Denuvo. That is a whole other discussion.
Yes, that’s my point. Android “doesn’t” have to use Google Play Store, but it is convenient. Other store fronts exist like F-droid and many vendor specific one. Google just provide the DRM mechanism like steam does provide DRM via steamworks
What I mean by that is, this is just an API/SDK for app developers to use. Google does not enforce the use of such things. Much like steam does not force the use of their drm for example (please note the difference between the marketplace and the drm). App developers can always choose how they make and distribute their app.
Ehh, this is basically just another form of DRM. No different than you having a Steam and GOG model. You can make your apps using DRM and enforce certain constraints
ROG Ally
Sometimes you just can’t guess the domain name of a company you know. Also, it doesn’t help that most companies website are fucking nightmare to navigate so having the relevant page on the first click is nice too
Well, remember the news when one of those fucker even continue the procedure despite the patient SCREAMING in pain and he just doesn’t care?
Hmmm, yeah it gets harder to associate it with physical reality when user generated content is introduced. Maybe an archival of said content is mandated but then again, who is going to serve the archive. In the case of youtube, it would be almost impossible
Huh, the difference is that a website is not akin to a public park but privately owned park with or without entrance fee. The owner is nice enough to open the park and let you do whatever you want for free with the cleaning and maintenance is paid by the owner, but when the park is closed, would you still say the owner should still be forced to maintain it?
The transport is usually TCP/IP tho. But nowadays QUIC is trying to make it UDP. HTTP is specifically an Application Layer Protocol from OSI model
The thing is, it does exists a way to convert grpc protobuf to json one
It usually goes down like this on some security heavy system: It does not know that a queue is missing. It does however know that it cannot access that queue. When an error is thrown on a secure system, usually the first thing to check is the privilege. If the queue does not exist, so does the privilege to access said queue hence the first error being thrown.
The emoji guy is giving Shrek a blowjob
Yeah, but as you said, it is highly dependent on the implementation. Theoretically it is possible that the user is also seeding the previously downloaded/streamed chunk (via WebRTC for example if using a browser). That reminds me of a madlad that stores data on a ping packet (see suckerpinch channel on youtube, specifically his video titled “Harder Drive”)
I never understood this argument. Why does having common first letter bad? If you mean subjectively then sure, it may not be for everyone, but objectively?
This. Titanfall 2 has ruined my taste in FPS forever. Nothing ever comes close for me
Those important notes feel like a personal experience lol
Yeah, hence why I said that technically the license can be revoked. Enforcing that is another matter. Without going into the weeds, we need to rethink how to handle it. At minimum, we need to make sure that if the license is revoked not from breaking ToS, the Copyright/IP holder must refund the purchase too. The copyright/ip holder still has the right to their creation but the consumer is also protected via those refund. It is indeed not bulletproof but whether you like it or not, copyright/ip protection is needed to some extent.