520

It's a commission for access to a lucrative market that Apple created.

Which Apple already got their money for. Or did you think those $1k iPhones were at cost?

Apple gives away the developer tools and charges an extremely modest annual App Store fee, which also covers the review process and hosting.

A review process they themselves mandate. You also forget they also charge 30% for anything sold through their store. Which they also mandate you use.

It's been common for platform creators to charge third-party developers in some capacity for many decades.

Not for services they aren't providing, it isn't.

Some do it by charging high costs for the developer tools, others by charging a commission based on sales.

Again, these are for services that are being provided. Apple is charging people to not use their own payment service.

How is that extra fee not getting struck down by courts? Developers already paid the fee to be on the app store.

Plenty of ways to identify people from their spending habits.

There are also plenty of ways to connect the address to the person. You can subpoena a legit vendor they've paid with that address, for example.

It wasn't a revelation in 2013 either. The ledger data has always been public information.

Things he knows nothing the fuck about. As per usual.

Mushroom, mushroom!

And my point still stands - they CAN'T prove that those IP addresses would be from frontier.

Umm. Yes they can. Quite easily. As Frontier would have been assigned those IPs as a static set.

Legally, not really. A username is also not a person.

True, but when tied to an IP address known to be used by a suspected person, it can be used as evidence.

Also if the Reddit account is old, there's a good chance they provided at least one piece of identifying info that further ties that account to a target.

It's not definitive but it is a lot harder to toss out

IPs alone aren't enough. IPs tied with usernames can be a lot more compelling.

Not quite. The two menus also have different settings in them

But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works.

But we do allow them to take inspiration from other artists and emulate their styles.

Much of the issue around AI art seems to be more about the prompter (IE: asking explicitly for copyrighted stuff or real people) than the AI itself.

For that to work, NYT has to prove OpenAI is copying their words verbatim, not just their style.

If the AI isn't outputting a string of words that can be found on an NYT article, they don't stand a chance