I think we both agree on that part. Don't get me wrong here, I 100% am against Nintendo on this one. They aren't entitled to anything, nor can I think of any good reason why one company should ever be allowed to compel another to provide details on their customers/users.

I have zero faith in Reddit on doing the right thing, though. If Nintendo asked nicely and Steve Huffingpaintman thought it would be more financially beneficial to play ball, I expect they would hand it over gift-wrapped with a pretty bow on top.

That clarifies things a bit, but I don't quite agree with the premise that it's "not actionable unless they can directly connect you to actual evidence of actual distribution."

Copyright infringement sits in the interesting intersection where it can be persued both criminally and civilly. I agree with your premise in where it applies to criminal cases, but the bar for civil cases (lawsuits) is a lot lower at preponderance of the evidence.

If Infringement Igor dumps and seeds ROMs and BIOS images and talks about the new dumps he's uploading for fellow redditors and didn't take any precautions to mask his identity, he is more likely than not fucked if Reddit hands over his information. Courts have decided an IP address is by itself insufficient as proof that the account holder is the one committing the infrigement, but Nintendo having a matching email and phone number to support their claim is going to make it a lot harder for Igor to convince the judge that he didn't do it.

It's overkill for static sites, but credit should be given to JSX for being a decent way to create DOM nodes dynamicly. You can use a JSX transformer without using React, too.

As per my previous comment:

Nowhere in my comment did I claim that Nintendo is entitled to any of the requested information.

And yes, you're correct: they could download every game ever created without paying for it and shout from the rooftops about doing so, and nobody would have a valid claim against them because that's not copyright infringement.

I'm specifically talking about the brilliant geniuses who, in no uncertain terms, state that they have or intend to personally upload, share, or otherwise redistribute in any form, ROMs and other copyrighted works. Only the government has the right to demand Reddit hands over personal information of its users, but if Nintendo asks and Reddit hands it over, I'm not going to feel bad for the subset of them that were stupid enough to paint a giant target on their own backs.

And that was the entire point of my original comment. Not "Nintendo gud", not "pirates bad", and certainly not "Nintendo has an involiable legal right to know the PII of pseudonymous users on another platform". Simply, "play stupid games while expecting Reddit to protect you from the consequences, win stupid prizes."

Unless you want hepatitis C, that's probably not the best idea. Nothing short of medieval plate armor would eliminate the risk of accidentally stabbing yourself on something.

Talking is irrelevant. It's debatable whether they're actually entitled to even compel the sub to be closed, as they didn't allow links to anything infringing, and discussion is protected. I just ignored that because I don't care.

There's a distinction between talking about piracy and admitting to committing copyright infringement on a public forum: the former is discussion, and the latter is self-incrimination. It's not going to actually matter unless that person makes themselves worthwhile to go after, but that doesn't make it any less stupid of an idea to admit to it in the first place.

Trying to demand the personal information of participants in discussions without direct, explicit proof that that account actually distributed pirated content makes them bad people. It is not excusable behavior.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm excusing Nintendo's overreaching demands from. Nowhere in my comment did I claim that Nintendo is entitled to any of the requested information.

Don't forget, he knows more about manufacturing game development than anyone currently alive on earth.

The cosmetics are all unique and non-fungible, and can be resold to other X premium users for real-world money in the form of credit that can be used to buy different tokens cosmetics.

They might actually get along. The CEOs of both happen to be hypocritical asswipes who think providing a worse product and complaining about competition will give them the monopoly they're pretending to not want.

Oh, I think I know how this is coded.

DELETE FROM applications
WHERE ai_review_consent=FALSE

The "you" when referring to liberals is very telling.

Nintendo is definitely overstepping with that request, but I can't say I feel bad for the subset of Redditors shitting their pants because they admitted to distributing* ROMs. Trusting a corporation to protect you from the consequences of your actions is a level of stupidity beyond deserving sympathy.

*Specifically distributing. Not downloading. Not discussing. Distributing.

In 2022, Musk was hesitant to allow Jones back on the social media platform after he had been banned years earlier. Musk specifically said at the time that he wouldn’t allow Jones back on Twitter because his first child died and suggested that Jones had caused too much pain to grieving parents after the Sandy Hook massacre.

“My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame,” Musk tweeted on Nov. 20, 2022, roughly a month after buying the platform.

I'm surprised people still have any respect for this hypocrite.

It's pushing existing boundaries, but I wouldn't call it an entirely new argument. Twitter's lawyers could (and probably would) argue that a Twitter account is analogous to something that is already well-established as being both property of the service provider and insulated enough that it doesn't make the service provider liable for content published through it.

My previous example of "Twitter account = IP address" is probably the easiest to explain through analogy.

An IP address is an addressable identifier. /
An account is an addressable identifier.

Verizon owns their IP addresses. /
Twitter owns their accounts.

Subscribers can communicate under one of Verizon's IP addresses. /
Users can communicate under one of Twitter's accounts.

Verizon can not be held liable in civil court for actions performed with one of their IP addresses. /
... (this is the argument Twitter could make)

A sane court would probably find that the second point isn't comparable because an account uniquely identifies a specific entity whereas an IP address is shared, but we don't exactly live in times where sanity is a given. Alternatively, they could argue that "Twitter handle = IP address" and "Twitter account = subscriber account".

In any case, we won't find out until when/if it makes it to court. Though, if it does, that might actually be one and only time I don't side against the MPAA or RIAA.

The same provisions that protect internet providers when subscribers use their service to break the law, probably. As long as they pretend to be a communications provider and self-regulate, they're shielded from liability.

In this case, the account/handle could be argued to be equivalent to an IP address, which is something owned by the provider and not the user. If Felon Musk tried to claim copyright of user-submitted content as well as their accounts, that would be what opens up a large can of liability worms (by turning them into a publisher).

I do enjoy some crusty C developers arguing with rusty not-C developers every once in a while.

Or sometimes do read the comments as a reminder on why you shouldn't.

If that happens, the MSNBC initialism will stand for "Most 'Scientific' News Broadcasting Corporation".

If I recall correctly, the "next gen update" for The Witcher 3 was UE5.

I did not recall correctly.

Trump’s Truth Social tariff tirade may be bluster, and Auricchio, at least, is confident there “won’t be a disaster” under a second Trump administration. “Threats during the election time are beyond reality,” he said. “I don’t believe Trump wants to disrupt world trade.”

This just in, a delusional business owner. More news at 11.