STARS
Baldur’s Gate 3 One-shot
Astarion x BG3 MC Dagmar
It’s a quiet night of reflection for two people thrown together by extraordinary circumstances and a common goal, as well as musings of what the future might bring for both…
—
This fan comic is made possible with the support and encouragement of my patrons. Thank you!
“Do Notte Buye Betamacks.”
—
Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett wrote that classic line in Good Omens in the late 1980s, when Sony’s Betamax video tape system was already known to be a commercial failure. While it was the first viable at-home video recording system, it had been largely supplanted by VHS videotapes because of their longer recording time and lower cost (although they had a slightly lower quality image as well).
But there was one area where Betamax was never supplanted by the VHS tape and player manufacturers, and that was in the US Supreme Court. On January 17, 1984, the Court issued its ruling in Sony vs Universal, the case that gave device manufacturers the right to invent, make and sell products that could be used to infringe on copyrights, as long as there was also a significant non-infringing purpose in/regarding the device.
When the Justices first discussed the case, only one of them thought that it was legally permissible for an individual or family to make a single copy of a tv show at home. Just think for a moment of what our world would look like if the Court had ruled the other way - at a minimum, cassette tapes would have been taxed or sold with a license fee on behalf of the songwriters’ publishers, recordable DVDs and the devices that record on them would probably have never existed, and it’s not even clear whether home computers would have developed the way they did; Congress certainly would have regulated the Internet differently in the mid-90s.
As the EFF wrote in 2005, had the case gone the other way, would innovators have been
forced by copyright law to ask permission from entertainment moguls before building new technologies? If Sony had asked permission from Hollywood, the Betamax might never have made it to market (or might have had very different features). It’s thanks to the Betamax ruling that the makers of VCRs and every other technology capable of infringing and non-infringing uses (e.g., personal computers, CD burners, the TiVo DVR, Apple’s iPod, and Web browsers) can continue to sell their wares without fear of lawsuits from copyright owners.
Fred Von Lohmann, now with Google’s GC office, wrote this ten years ago - before YouTube (and even gmail) even existed:
New technologies make copyrights more valuable because they unleash new markets and business models. That’s been the rule, without exception, for a century. The VCR ended up making Hollywood rich, with sales of pre-recorded cassettes quickly eclipsing the receipts from box office ticket sales. There’s no reason to think that the Internet won’t create even more revenue-generating opportunities.
Every new technology that’s accepted by the mass market impacts all the markets that already exist. Von Lohmann mentioned the publishing industry and scanners in that article ten years ago - and scanners are what made the entire Google Books ruling possible last fall, which in turn expanded the definition and tests regarding Fair Use of all types.
Every new technology that’s accepted by the mass market changes how we interact with stories, and often, it changes (and expands) copyright law, too.
So no, do notte buy Betamacks (in 1980) if you’re interested in a lower-priced way to record tv shows for two hours before switching tapes.
Do buy into Betamax’s argument from thirty years ago that a single copy of a copyright-protected work does not infringe. Do buy into Betamax’s argument that single copies and library-building are both Fair Use. Do buy into the Supreme Court’s ruling that inventors and users cannot be liable for infringement for creating, distributing or using a device, program or item that is capable of non-infringing uses.
Do record something today - likely on digital media - to mark the fact that you can do so, legally.
Happy 40th Anniversary to the case that underpins Fair Use, technology & the Internet.
mortality posting pallet cleanser♡
th...there was a meme circulating twitter.
Let's celebrate GOTY <3
Go on tell me I’m wrong
So I want to say something here that's worth mentioning:
The internet as we know it today is completely un-navigatable without an adblocker of some form. It's likewise completely unsafe. While an adblocker won't prevent user-end actions that lead to viral compromise, the situation is so fucking dire that even the fucking feds recommend you use an adblocker.
I was/still am an IT professional for longer than some of you reading this have been alive. Putting an Adblocker on a clients computer, regardless of if it's consumer grade or corporate, is the first thing I do. Most ad blockers allow you to white list websites in order to avoid having to deal with shit like what Youtube is doing.
Youtube is preying upon consumer ignorance of white listing in an effort to generate revenue via Youtube Premium. It's fucking dumb as hell, and it's going to directly lead to another wave of compromised systems across the board.
Do not be misinformed. Ad blockers absolutely are a necessary part of the modern internet usage. Please read the wiki on your adblocker of choice (I recommend Ublock Origin) and read up on whitelisting. Don't fall for this fucking scam Youtube is pulling, and most certainly don't stop using your Ad Blocker.
I actually don't think that Premium is the goal here—I think the goal is to get as much user data as possible regardless of whether or not they're paying customers. I have a very good reason for believing this.
See, I have Premium, and I have for like four years. I am exactly what you would assume they want all users of the platform to be. I pay monthly for access to a handful of features that I find useful, and they don't serve me ads at all.
I still make sure to block all tracking cookies whenever possible, because I'm not using the Internet strictly for YouTube, and I'm not in the business of allowing myself to be tracked all across the web when I can avoid it.
A couple weeks ago, YouTube stopped working for me entirely. After having it running in the background more or less all day while I was drawing, it suddenly stopped loading anything but the skeleton.css stylesheet, which looks like this:
Nothing here is clickable, it's literally just a bunch of static graphical elements. I couldn't access my account, settings, anything. I was completely locked out of the service.
I did some digging, and found out that this is one of the things that happens when the anti-adblock protocol catches up to uBlock Origin and shuts down people who refuse to remove that protection. But...I have Premium. The platform doesn't serve me ads at all. There is absolutely no reason for them to block my access to the platform.
Still, I tried turning uBlock Origin off, and it didn't change anything. Weird.
Eventually I got ahold of someone in tech support, and I was told to do the following:
- Stop using Firefox, reinstall Chrome, and only use that to access YouTube. This is because that is apparently the only browser that is "truly compatible" with the platform, and if I'm using another one then they can't promise that it will work. (This is a lie, and after a half hour of back and forth with the agent she admitted it, linking me to a page showing all compatible browsers, among which Firefox is prominently listed.)
- Completely uninstall any adblockers I have on any browser that I use, because having them at all could cause YouTube to block my access. I was not told to whitelist YouTube, I was told to completely uninstall the extensions on any and all browsers, and then try to access the platform again. This kind of explains the fact that turning UBO off didn't work—the implication here is that my account was flagged as having an adblocker active, even on an alternative browser, and the account itself would be blocked until they were removed.
I was told that unless I completed both of these steps—and these were the first troubleshooting steps offered to me, as a note—then we wouldn't be able to move forward with the tech support process. Literally, if I did not do these things, the agent would not even attempt to provide any more help. I basically told her that was unacceptable, and we went back and forth for a while longer. She told me that adblockers are not a form of Internet security, so removing mine would not leave me vulnerable to anything, and told me to install Chrome an additional four times. I told her that I was not going to install Chrome. She told me that we couldn't move forward unless I carried out every step she instructed me to do in order to fix the problem.
I told her that I was sorry if I seemed nasty, but it seemed like she had no intentions of actually offering any help and was just following a script telling her to make me install Chrome—and that she needed a better script. Her response was "I'm sorry I don't have better news for you," and that ended the conversation.
Again, one more reminder, I have Premium. I am not being served ads at all. That didn't matter, I was still instructed to uninstall those extensions outright, and refused assistance or access to a platform I pay for unless I agreed to do so.
Want to know how I got the platform to load again?
I manually turned off JUST the tracking cookie blocker.
They don't care about users' money, they care about users' data. They care about knowing what you are doing and where you're doing it, even when that information isn't being used to serve ads.
Anyway I cleared my cache/cookies, updated the extension, logged out, restarted Firefox, manually turned the tracking blocker back on, and logged back in. It's worked fine since then.