Many businesses would still use soft-deletion even if distributed data wasn't an issue. The company I work for has soft-deletion enabled because they want to be able to help customers who accidentally delete something. I wish we would just tell them "better luck next time", but obviously management will never say that.
What annoys me more is how many companies give next to no insight into or control over data retention. It should be unambiguous how soon or often our data gets hard-deleted, if ever.
Same! I took apart so many electronics when I was a kid. In retrospect, I really have to appreciate my parents putting up with this. Fortunately, I didn't permanently destroy anything... most of the time. Radio Shack was paradise for me in terms of being able to fix stuff and also build my own electronics. I built an AM radio transmitter from scratch using Radio Shack parts. That made my 11 year old self feel like I had discovered fire.
What happened to Radio Shack is pretty sad. I get that the business simply wasn't going to sustain at that scale as consumer tech evolved, but RS caused their own decline way sooner than it should have happened. Becoming a high pressure cellphone retailer was a stupid idea, and I remember their selection not even being that good to begin with. And, like Kramer from Seinfeld said, Radio Shack really wanted your phone number for purchasing something as simple as batteries. Today, phone numbers are asked for all the time when purchasing something like groceries, but I remember Radio Shack being overly aggressive in getting your phone number. Meanwhile, their electronics component inventory kept dwindling.
At least with Fry's Electronics, they still had a lot of components on the shelf right until the very end, as ridiculously overpriced as they were, whereas Radio Shack seemed to dismiss its core audience.
Silicon Valley's convenience store when JDR Microdevices, Graybar, and such weren't open... such a tiny addressable market that vanished to zero and failed to keep up with the advent of the internet. Other regional shops in other regions like B & H Photo at least figured out how to sell to a national audience and keep parity with their brick & mortar to complement each other (MicroCenter and Central Computer Systems also managed to survive). Fry's carried overpriced oddball inventory and failed to focus as Amazon, eBay, and Best Buy grew while even CompUSA (the long-time tech hypermart) died.
They haven't really made anything I've wanted to play in the last few decades, but having grown up in the N64 era, it is continuously sad to see Nintendo behave this way. I've seen them go after YouTube channels that have gameplay walkthroughs with commentary for old games. To say that this or even footage of emulators is a serious threat to them is laughable. Make your games easily accessible, don't treat your customers like crap (for effectively advertising your products for free), and people will buy your games.
Showing Nintendo's own software running on hardware that is not licensed for use can be considered a form of infringement. Displaying their logo while engaging in certain types of (illegal) activity can be considered infringement. This has been tried before.
While it may seem "unfair", it's entirely within their rights to do so.
I don't think it's so much about whether Nintendo has the right as opposed to whether one should do business with them based on how overly defensive they are. There are other gaming platforms in town, and none of them (not even Sony) are as needlessly defensive of their IP as much as Nintendo, so it isn't obvious that Nintendo is just doing what it takes. They go above and beyond.
Also, whether a crime is being committed at the same time as displaying a trademark shouldn't matter unless the trademark is actually being violated. Since trademark today is effectively being enforced by multinational corporations scratching each others backs, we may never actually know whether Nintendo's lawyers could convince a judge or jury.
Is that the case in Japanese law? I don't know anything about Japanese law, but I've heard they don't have an equivalent "fair use" law which results in much stricter control.
Good question. I don't actually know, although I'm not sure how Japanese law would extend to a multinational social media platform that happens to be headquartered in the United States.
uBlock Origin is likely the primary reason Firefox has any amount of meaningful browser market share today. If Firefox didn't support it then I would be using another browser. Seeing as Mozilla has been struggling to get anything right, they should be kissing gorhill's behind.
What annoys me more is how many companies give next to no insight into or control over data retention. It should be unambiguous how soon or often our data gets hard-deleted, if ever.
reply