You payed for accessing the content the way it’s described in the ToS. I expect you haven’t read the ToS. It’s a contract. Violating that contract is piracy. There is no argueing about that. If you think piracy is morally okey then that’s your thing and your opinion that I respect. But it’s definitely piracy.
Tight working conditions and pay is what makes German cars so expensive.
deleted by creator
There are a lot of contradictions in this sentence.
You’re working for the same corpos and you’re getting payed. You’re part of the system and you’re profiting off it. We get rid of DRM tomorrow but you get a 20% salary reduction. Would you do it? I think you wouldn’t. So why would they? You guys are pretentious and can’t think past the simplest complexities of an economic system.
Yea you’re above the law and everyone else. I’ve hear this plenty of times.
Nobody is eroding consumer rights. The consumer rights haven’t changed. Maybe it’s time to change that. Change legislation and stop pirating like monkeys.
For a growing number of users, we can provide search results and ads from Google. For the eligible users, we will provide Google results by default. When your search results and ads are provided by Google, Google will use essential cookies and local storage to help defend against fraudulent traffic. Beyond this, the cookies Google uses will depend on where you are searching from: If you search from the EU, UK or certain US states (for example California), Google will not set additional cookies without your consent. If you search from elsewhere, Google may place additional cookies and the functionality of these cookies will depend on whether you have a Google account
Seems like using Ecosia is about as private as using Google directly.
Is Ecosia any good for the privacy-minded folks among us?
By subscribing you agree to a contract. The company is doing no shitty practice since everything is black and white in the contract. You just don’t like the contract. But the consequence should be to not sign it.
They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
And they have every right to do so. If you like it or not. You don’t own and have not created the protected content. On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
Also baseless assumptions.
Btw, you don’t need to use whatever service you don’t own if you disagree with their practices. DRM is shit. But you’re not in any position to elevate yourself above that. You don’t own the services and you have not contributed in creating the protected content. You have no right to decide anything.
Right. Let’s legalize nukes and bio-weapons for the average Joe. I’m sure someone is going to find a legitimate use for them that doesn’t involve using them as a weapon. There is always someone who uses them in a fair way. So it’s perfectly justified to allow them as they basically compare to oxygen now.
Logic checks out?
Are you serious right now? You can’t actually believe ordinary people will go out of their way to visit some random Github repository just to remove the DRM for their convenience. I guarantee you that 100% of contributers and users of that repo are doing piracy.
deleted by creator
Open-source projects are quiet safe on Github. Maybe don’t push illegal code? Seems pretty obvious to me.
The mentioned repositories enable and encourage criminal behavior. And it’s quiet intentional. It’s because of piracy that we have DRM in the first place. The audacity now of pirates to wine about them not getting what they want like the entire world revolves just around them.
Bro, Europe isn’t an autocracy. What is it you actually want?
So no solar for the UK then?
The contract states you don’t own it and they can take it away any time. So why are you stupid to sign it? Buy a physical book if you don’t like it. But there is no justification for piracy like “I don’t get exactly what I want so I now decide that I have the moral right to do whatever I want with indefinitely.”