I'm grateful. Because it means that we don't have a bunch of additional man-children running around created by unfit / unwilling parents. Or a bunch of idiots who think that making babies will just magically fix the lives of those around them because their personal interpretation of $deity said so.

TL;DR: Having kids doesn't make anyone grow up. It just makes kids suddenly have to raise even younger kids into more uncertain outcomes.

That, or it's just the people with those genes fucked more often and had more kids to "roll the dice" with as a result than those that didn't. Stupidity, drugs, and alcohol go a long way.

Nature really doesn't care much more than that, but the sentient mind does, and in the grand scheme of things, the sentient mind preempts genetics. I.e. The sentient mind gets more decision time, can make decisions faster, and can actively prevent genetics from being passed on. With increasing accuracy against specific traits. See also gene therapy for IVF. As well as social pressures that can disincentivize reproduction. See also the global birth rate decline in post-industrial nations.

TL;DR: Human shaping of Nature is far more likely to be the correct explanation than just Natural Selection, but I'd love to see a study where they control for something like smoke inhalation and sugar intake for multiple human generations to disprove it.

Looks like the AI slop infected their post.

The issue with app ownership of data is that's impractical. Most people can't even be bothered to learn about file permissions, let alone actually set them. Google tries but, some would argue intentionally, fails to provide any mechanism to whitelist apps accessing each other's data transparently.

I.e. There's no OS settings menu option to allow App A to read data from App B. and even if there was, most people wouldn't use it unless prompted to in a social engineering attack. As a result, Google would gate it behind rebooting your phone, re-authenticating, throwing up every nasty gram and scare-up (scary popup warning) they could, and then forcing you to wait 24 hours. (Did I get that right, or is there a newer more involved method now?)

The simple solution is to have better education, but good luck convincing anyone of that in this day and age. So we're stuck with user auth only, and if you get hosed because you did something stupid, then blame the device instead of the idiot giving instructions.

Because, presumably, there will be rent-a-cops on standby ready to punish anyone trying such copying / forgery.

Remember: This isn't your bedroom at home completely devoid of those who would stop you, this is a planned centralized gathering where physical security is already required.

This is the market handling it: The sellers get a new juicy revenue stream that never dries up, government spooks paid for with your taxes, and you get less privacy and less money. Everyone wins. (Except consumers, but don't worry about them. Nobody does in the face of shareholders.)

Well, TFA wants to foist more government tracking, their real customers, onto anyone buying tickets to an event for starters.

Because this is how you get a "Stop Killing Humans" petition in the EU, and a "Right to Medical Care" movement in the US.

DRM has no valid purpose for the legitimate law-abiding customer. For them, they just get suck with an inferior product compared to the "free" version from the high seas. I.e. It's all about control, and profit. Which runs directly against the concept of "do no harm" in medicine.

We already know what the likes of Monsanto would do with this tech: Ban anyone from having kids without ordering from their catalog, and suing anyone who got a contaminated germ cell with one of their modifications. Even those who were targeted for contamination by their neighbors intentionally.

We already know what the likes of Hollywood would do with this tech: Sue into financial ruin anyone who could even remotely have looked at it without their permission, despite the lack of uniquely identifying evidence.

We already know what the likes of video game publishers would do with this tech: Mandate it in everything, and try to shove it into the most critical invasive areas possible without any regard for quality or safety of the end-user.

We already know what the likes of John Deere would do with this tech: Lockout "unauthorized" third party healthcare providers and mandate expensive technician call outs that can take too long to actually happen and kill your loved ones.

Now apply those outcomes to humans:
Monsanto - A real birth rate crisis due to letting for profit companies dictate when and how many kids your citizens are allowed to have. Nations wind up trading all kinds of political favors for birth licenses.
Hollywood - Doctors afraid to treat their patents, due to legal liability. Massive tracking of everyone becomes mandatory. (Hope your DNA has a constant internet connection to re-authenticate, or you might suffer from sudden death syndrome.)
video game publishers - Cancer all over the place. All of the cancer, all at once. BSOD takes on a whole new literal meaning.
John Deere - Healthcare becomes unaffordable worldwide. Scams and real options (for those willing to pay the price) that promise to let you "cut in line" for faster technician visits become the norm. Drastically limiting access to healthcare worldwide. (Especially in poorer countries.)

TL;DR: The amount of ways that the use of this tech can go unethical far out weigh those that are ethical, and it's not even close.

Everyone does, or did you validate https://cdn.consentmanager.net... before you opened this page to see if it was subject to a supply chain attack?

Not to mention, TFS mentions digital signatures. The problem here is that the original files weren't being served in the first place, and embedded digital signatures (how Windows expects them to be packaged) can't help you in that case. The signature is part of the original file which wasn't sent. Making matters worse, if that file had been given a valid digital signature, even if that signature came from someone else entirely, it would never be detected by 98.94% of end-users because Windows would happily report that the signature on the file was valid, even though that signature wasn't from the intended vendor. (Note: I say Intended here, because those same end-users wouldn't know who's signature was the correct one.)

He probably does, given he seems to be of the "Fuck Yours, Got Mine" mindset that all "owners" tend to gravitate to.

Well, what did you expect when Amazon became America's warehouse and distributor to the door? If Amazon has a problem with being a large company subject to federal regulations, there's plenty of places around the world that would be happy to have them. As a multinational super conglomerate, they are probably already in those jurisdictions with that lack of worker's rights. As well as other jurisdictions that have even higher standards than America is willing to impose.

Great, special courts with specific judges for handling piracy cases. Definitely not a bribery target, and fully impartial. Unlike those pesky "normal courts". And of course let's throw in DNS blocking mandates for good measure, not like that will pass the constitutional sniff test with the new "piracy courts".

Nothing to see here, nope nosirree.

Considering the movies have had heavy handed cartels to provide their enforcement for decades, and often charge far more than the pirated content was even remotely worth, and don't even try to identify the real culprit beyond a number, I'm not exactly sympathetic for them.

Further, piracy is a one and done thing. I.e. There's no guarantee that for any two copyrighted materials being pirated that the person behind 198.51.100.3 is the same person. Even at the same time, due to things like NAT, and the courts have recognized this in multiple cases.

So say nothing about the industry's previous attacks on individuals that often didn't even remotely ID the correct person and the ridiculous life ruining punishments that the industry sought against them. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per item that cost less than $10.00 at the time.

TL;DR: No an IP address is not sufficient evidence to uniquely identify a culprit, and as such a disproportionate punishment is out of the question. You want hard time? Do the hard work to ID them properly.

Me as well.

Well, the last time that the Court deferred to Congress, we got 20 years of abuse (Digital locks), extortion (Copyright strikes), multiple lost legitimate businesses (repair services, recycling services, etc.), and political movements (Right to Repair, Stop Killing Games, etc.) that still hasn't resulted in any legislation or seemingly any desire to legislate whatsoever from Congress.

Can't exactly blame the Court for being fed up with all of the lawsuits that Congress refuses to address now can we?

Well, America isn't exactly the best place to look for democratic leadership much less holding companies accountable when they break the law or harm society. So it's not much of a surprise to see the proles resorting to the only means left when the other three boxes have failed them.