yes
No. (((They))) wanted an authoritative annoted edition before neo-nazis could publish their own wrongthink version.
It is legal to publish Mein Kampf now since it is public domain but you will most likely get sued for hate speech. The cost of this lawsuit will be way higher than the profits of selling the book.
Anyways owning/buying/selling original copies is completely legal. Furthermore most german households should have an original edition unless they threw it away.
FCKDRM - GOG Launches DRM-free media site
Josiah Powell
Asher Price
With a name like that, I won't use or promote it.
Henry Smith
How much does Valve pay you guys to make these posts?
Parker Martin
Their games don't have DRM. That is what normal people care about.
Angel Price
Sorry GOG, but no, DRM is software running secondarily whose only purpose is to police someone's legitimate use of other software. There are other types of this sort of thing, some involving hardware, collectively known as content protection. Using such an overbroad definition of DRM allows one to argue that a computer architecture or breathing oxygen are DRM because you need them to be able to do X thing.
Ayden Nguyen
That sounds like it only covers copy-protected software, not for example copy-protected e-books. If you didn't intend that you should maybe tweak that definition to make it less ambiguous.
Carter King
The basic idea behind DRM is restricting certain actions a user can take to protect intellectual property. The idea of having exclusive rights on something just because you thought of it first is a ridiculous by itself and trying to further enforce it by restricting users is just taking it too far.
And according to this short quote from Wikipedia, DRM is literal malware. Yes, FUCK DRM!
Elijah Peterson
The basic idea behind copy protection is restricting certain actions a user can take to protect intellectual property, of which DRM is one particular implementation of it. I'm not trying to argue that DRM isn't cancerous shit here, I'm saying robust definitions are important for discourse.
Leo Torres
Herp, I actually meant to type copy protection, not content protection. How embarrassing.
Brayden Baker
as if the media jew doesn't want to control who VIEWS the content, not just makes copies of it.
If they could have a camera pointing at you and charge you $1.99 for every person past 2 or 3 in the living room you have watching the content every time they would.
Aside from that it is "Content Protection", with tech jews pushing processors and gpu's that have "protected paths" encrypting the media all the way to the screen.