drislands

It serves the key purpose of Mumble, in that it provides a reliable way to get in a voice chat with people. The other features (text chat, video calls, screen sharing, "servers" that let people aggregate for a dedicated purpose/community) come together to make a legitimately good product that's hard to replace.

Is there a peer to peer equivalent to Discord? That feels like it would be the best option, since it wouldn't rely on a centralized company that could enshittify the product.

It is a bit baffling. I think it's more ethical than the alternative though: pay gating useful functionality. Offering paid pallete swaps doesn't make a lot of sense to me, someone who would never pay for that, but it does at least mean I can just ignore it. If they were to, say, restrict voice calls to a paid subscription, suddenly I'm in a position where either I'm paying for the service or ditching it entirely.

I doubt the deposits were for the full cost, right?

"several X users claim", they say for sources. Christ Almighty.

Against the terms of agreements they made? Yes.

To be fair, this is what I meant when I said wrong. Enough people have taken umbrage with my wording that I think I should update it, though. Thank you for your reply.

My understanding is that the IA had implemented a digital library, where they had (whether paid or not) some number of licenses for a selection of books. This implementation had DRM of some variety that meant you could only read the book while it was checked out. In theory, this means if the IA has 10 licenses of a book, only 10 people have a usable copy they borrowed from the IA at a time.

And then the IA disabled the DRM system, somehow, and started limitlessly lending the books they had copies of to anyone that asked.

I definitely don't like the obnoxious copyright system in the USA, but what the IA did seems obviously ~~wrong~~ against the agreement they entered into. Like if your local library got a copy of Book X and then when someone wanted to borrow it they just copied it right there and let you keep the copy.

ETA: updated my wording. I don't believe what the IA did was morally wrong, per se, but rather against the agreement I presume they entered into with the owners of the books they lent.

I feel like in that case one would be loudly fighting to get the law changed, rather than insisting it's actually fine. Maybe that's just semantics.

I do not understand what point you're making. Can you elaborate?

You're welcome! I hope I didn't come off as rude.

Actually, in a way, you did! You said "get a life", which indicates you think I don't have one. Me giving you information about me shows that I do have one. So now you're more informed than you were before!

The commenter I replied to is from a French instance. If I were writing in a different language, I would want to know where I've made mistakes.