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.

But CITIZEN! THAT is an OBSTACLE to police investigations!

Don't you want police to investigate crimes!?
You aren't SOFT ON CRIME, are you!? Only criminals would have anything to fear from expanded police powers, citizen!

Remember Citizen, Reauthorizing FISA is absolutely ESSENTIAL to our national security, because the gatekeeping by all those bad, onerous warrants we used to need were OBSTACLES to INVESTIGATION! Those mean, bad terrorists that hate our way of life are aided and abetted by our heroic men and women being stymied in this most important work! (Pay absolutely no attention to what's in the Kissinger memos! We're good guys! You can TRUST us!)

--- That is to say, 'We gotta be able to do this whenever, however, however often, and for whatever reason we want!' Is indeed *exactly the thing they cannot be allowed to have*, (for the very reason you just illustrated), and is also expressly they very thing they have been crying publicly about until govt gave it to them.

There is not a category where it is at once cheap and easy to do, and 'does not get abused'.

That means it cannot be cheap and easy to do, if you want to prevent its abuse.

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 benefits are not the same if the publisher or the platform gatekeeper retains the ability to remotely disable licensed software.

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.

It was known what would happen if carbon fiber was used for the hull in a submsersible nearly a decade earlier: See the DeepFlight Challenger: "Based on testing at high pressure, the DeepFlight Challenger was determined to be suitable only for a single dive, not the repeated uses that had been planned as part of Virgin Oceanic service. As such, in 2014, Virgin Oceanic scrapped plans for the five dives project using the DeepFlight Challenger, as originally conceived, putting plans on hold until more suitable technologies are developed"

It wasn't about "toes". People died. You seem to be using the same strawman tactics as Stockton Rush.
Everyone else: "This could kill people."
Rush and you: "Your feelings don't matter."

Except they didn't. They did not even try. The Titan was using their second hull after the first one developed cracks. What did OceanGate do differently to prevent cracks in the second hull? Nothing. They did not change the formulation. They did not change the design. This was the concern voiced by James Cameron. Cameron was excited about the possibility of developing new forms of carbon fiber for submersibles. Until he learned OceanGate was not developing new forms of carbon fiber. They just used existing forms which were known not to be suitable.

I have no idea what you are talking about "departments". People have experimented using carbon fiber for hulls. They were found to crack under multiple dives. That's it.

Then you should know the phrase very well: "Regulations are often written in blood." You seem not to understand it though.

I see so many names in the commit logs, but some standouts include: Blum, Cook, Torvalds, Solodai, Tyragu, Stitt, Bergmann, Wysocki, Panda, de Mello, and no doubt some I missed who have a large number of commits fixing this problem.

Thank to all who undertook this Herculean chore!

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?

In plain English? Here you go:

The way the machine works, if one side can get funding for a PAC to do something (like Leading the Future, pro-AI pac), then it's relatively easy to get funding for a PAC supporting the opposite. Fund both sides, and eventually you can leverage that to influence.

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).

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).

As I understand it, ownership of a physical object is defined by the personal property laws of the several states.

A "copy" under United States copyright law is any physical object in which a work of authorship is fixed, such as a game cartridge or game disc. The owner of a lawfully made copy of a work enjoys two carveouts, or uses deemed noninfringing. One is reselling that copy (17 USC 109). Another is making private copies essential to the use of a computer program (17 USC 117). These carveouts subsist as long as the copy remains readable. A license through PlayStation Store does not.

You don't want to know. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Astroturfing is grassroot.

Don't ask questions. Unless they're questions about lunch.