Perhaps they could take a clue from software from 40+ years ago and make top-posting a configurable option.
But Microsoft has pretty much completely given up on making their software configurable for user preferences.
Hey, I resemble that remark.
"Dr. Sam Becket never returned home."
You forgot to misspell his name.
Just because you're not given the controls [the random seed used to process an LLM prompt] doesn't mean they do not exist.
I'll have to disagree with you on that. What matters for reproducible builds is that the person performing the build has power to set the seed.
Not if they keep spending 10 figures a year trying to make VR happen.
How long can Meta survive without shipping a product people actually want?
Developers can make the license whatever they want including on consoles.
Not once the console maker shuts down the platform's reactivation servers.
Or say the publisher wants to publish a multiplayer game where players 2 through 4 can download a limited-functionality version of the game without charge so long as player 1 is a paying licensee and on their mutual contacts list. This resembles the model used by StarCraft spawned installations, single-Pak multiplayer on Game Boy Advance, and DS Download Play on Nintendo DS. I don't think all consoles support this sort of game sharing.
Which is not an ownership issue, it's a DRM/license enforcement issue.
Correct. The digital restrictions management regime on paid downloads from PlayStation Store doesn't grant rights to a licensee that are equivalent to those that the law reserves for the owner of a copy. The complaint, as I understand it, is that the required notice of inequivalence is not conspicuous enough.
The plaintiffs can still get the same benefits of the product even if their purchase is just for a license.
The benefits are not the same if the publisher or the platform gatekeeper retains the ability to remotely disable licensed software.
The only thing you really lose is the ability to resell your license easily.
Or, in the case of certain failure modes of PlayStation Store (such as end of support for a particular platform), the ability to restore your license to replacement hardware.
printed books, zines, and newspapers
You are allowed to copy these for your friends (but not for selling or public sharing).
I never heard of that being the case in the United States, where the lawsuit described in the featured article was filed.
That's like saying publishers of printed books, zines, and newspapers never sold books, zines, and newspapers.
Narrowing:
1. The right answer in the case of games with a substantial offline experience is to not make the license for the offline portion revocable.
2. The right answer in the case of games without a substantial offline experience is to describe the license as a rental at all times.
All three major console makers require all customers to "agree[] to let them change the terms when you signed up." If a game developer wants to sell a customer an indefinite license that the console maker can't revoke, the developer has no way to do so. This appears to be evidence of a cartel to me. How is it not?
You don't respect the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment
Say I buy an indefinite license to use a video game. Then the game's publisher or the platform's owner unilaterally revokes that license. What do I have to show for having "respect[ed] the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment"?
Title 17, United States Code, reserves specific rights to the owner of a copy. It defines a copy as a physical object in which a work is fixed (17 USC 101).
Licensed for how long?
The owner of a copy of a computer program retains the right to use that copy, including the right to make essential ephemeral copies in RAM, as long as the copy remains readable (17 USC 117).
And how do you obtain a copy of the software to exercise your licensed rights?
As I understand it, ownership of a physical object is defined by the personal property laws of the several states.
The reward for working hard is more hard work.
