Germany doesn't but French McD has

Because in Trump world everything's a zero sum game. The global profit of the drug manufacturers is set. Unchangeable, that's the baseline. So if the US is paying too much then somebody else has to pay too little. That's also why he proposed most favoured nation as a policy for drug pricing las year.

Of course he could also negotiate drug prices the way Germany does it, but that would cut into corporate profits

There used to be/probably still is a Subreddit called "Linux for Noobs" that could act as inspiration

Elmo's, diegeticaly (as in "in universe"), canonically (as in officially) three and a half years old. So if he was mentioned, it would have been as a victim.

One half-serious answer is that nobody understands what the Swiss model actually is. Even in Switzerland it’s not always clear. For some, it’s a “customised quasi-membership” of the EU; for others, it’s the core of an old struggle to stay free of it. But in a heated context like the Brexit referendum, vagueness can be useful.

And this is how you handle realising that you just posted stupid shit. You keep the the stupid shit but you also acknowledge your mistake in an edit.

Good job accidentally modeling good behaviour

As pointed out by Ross Scott himself in this videothis kind of answer was basically expected.

That's why the current strategy is to get MEPs to amend the digital fairness act, which doesn't require the Commissions approval.

https://commodore.net/callback/

Almost correct. The process of creating a new law in the EU is the following:

1. The Commission proposes a law
2. Parliament and the Council rewrite the legal text handed to them from the Commission
3. The three bodies find a compromise between the original texts and their respective edits

Since the Commission refuses to do step one the initiative plans to get parliament to get the desired changes into a law that's currently at step two (the digital fairness act). So it's still a new law that's not yet in effect and the process is technically shorter (because we are skipping step one)

The better option is under development. Plasma Bigscreen is to be part of the next KDE release

https://plasma-bigscreen.org/

And Switchfin is a TV friendly Jellyfin client for Linux

https://flathub.org/...

Edit: Plasma Bigscreen has just been released

There are even solutions that automate a lot of the configuration for such a setup. I'm using Pangolin for example:https://github.com/fosrl/pangolin

But you could set up something like this manually if you want more flexibility (pangolin is based on traefic rather than Nginx)

And in doing so we are making the AI even better at pretending it's human, necessitating even more hoops in the future

OK, I'll bite.

Even Value has tried to argue that Steam is a subscription service and that you don't own Steam games but rather licenses to games on Steam.

If you open a printed, physical book, you'll likely see something like this printed on the first page: "copyright [author name], all rights reserved". If the book was printed in the last year, it might also include language explicitly forbidding AI training and other forms of data mining.

If you look at the back of the packaging of physical movie releases (so for example a DVD or Bluray case) you'll find find something like "this movie has only been licensed for personal used. Public exhibition is not permitted"

Because media has always been licenced. The question therefore is less about license vs ownership and instead about what makes a fair license. SKG argues, that the licensing as it currently exists is deeply unfair. Unfair enough that it possibly already violates EU law. That's what the lawsuit in France is about.

A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way.

Not really. The game has, as you yourself noted, been licensed to you. The granted rights don't include commercial activity. Publishers could even put the videogame equivalent of the language from the movie cases into their licenses to spell that out.

*citizens, not users

No, they clearly don't

It's not really about fair use because European law doesn't really have that as a concept. I'm talking about contract law, since licenses are contracts. Now, I'm not a lawyer and shit gets complicated real fast but basically EU law states that contracts need to be fair. Unfair clauses are invalid (again really simplifying here). SKG argues that this is the case for games.

It's the German version of me_irl. Stands for "Ich _ im echten Leben" and is a direct translation of the English

Bazzite:

• Fedora based, so newer libraries
• Atomic updates, therefore doesn't break on updates
• Steam and Lutris are preinstalled

tl,dr: it's a Pixelfed instance by and for native people in Latin America

It's also a strawman argument. Because yes, developers have less to no control over the operation of private servers. Yes, that means they can't moderate those servers.

But

This initiative only covers games, not supported anymore by the devs anyway. Meaning legally speaking everything happening to private servers would be literally not their concern anymore. And new legislation, should it come to that, would spell that out.