ImplyingImplications

joined 2 years ago
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

How would access be enforced to only paying customers? That would require a server which the company is shutting down

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

So the devs give all the founders an empty map they can run around offline in and that fixes everything? The game hasn't been killed? It's been saved?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

The cost of trying to do business? They made a product and nobody paid so now they have to give it away for free because they're the greedy ones?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about Free to Play games? Can they be shutdown?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (14 children)

You didn't create those games. Games are products people work to produce. Radical Heights was a free to play game that was shutdown in a month. What would you force them to do? Release their server code for free so anybody can run a Radical Heights server that people can connect to and play? So a whole bunch of people who never gave the developers a cent have the right to demand the game be given to them simply because it existed for 1 month?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 236 points 1 year ago (23 children)

no Swedish law is being violated

Unfortunately, Swedish courts disagreed

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fax machines and stamps

The reason is because the company that operates a shipping vessel often doesn't own the ship--they charter it. It would be the owner that pays for the fancy wind propulsion systems but only the charterer would benefit from the reduced fuel costs. Owner-operators of shipping vessels sometimes do have a supplemental wind propulsion system.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My understanding is that a generic public music performance licence generally covers the use of pretty much any song played in any venue for any reason. I wouldn't doubt they purchased such a licence because it's fairly cheap.

However, there is legal precedent that tying the artist to a message they don't like isn't part of that general public performance licence. It's recommended that, if the event is going to be religious or political, the organizers get confirmation from the artist that they're alright with it to avoid a lawsuit. I highly doubt they're doing this.

Edit: apparently the song was used in a video and not just played at a rally. That's way different. They definitely just stole the song

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Link previews have killed Rick Rolling

view more: ‹ prev next ›