I think it's cute how naive some people are who think that they'll freely be allowed to FF, rev, stop and skip in software that's explicitly been created for the sake of taking control out of the hands
And yet I can freely do all those things on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and basically every other streaming service using EME.
Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.
Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.
Or maybe companies should stop acting like stalkers and that they own you and should have control over your personal life? Yeah, I know, that's just crazy. How dare employees expect to have a life outside the purview of their employer.
EME will still exist regardless of what comes of this appeal. It's not as if browser makers are legally obligated to stop shipping EME even if Tim did reverse the decision. They were doing so long before EME was even approved.
So what do they expect? Basically, a VCR experience. Including the option to fast forward, rewind, skip what they don't give a shit about, pause where they want to and watch it as often as they like for buying once.
What exactly does pause, fast forward and rewind have to do with EME? You can freely do all those things with EME.
Offer that and they won't bother to ask their geek friend how to get what they want.
The vast majority of people don't do this. They simply just install the Netflix or Amazon Prime video app on the 100s of devices that are supported, log in to their account and the start playing videos. It's so cute that you think people need a "geek" to do this when they don't.
But even if this EME decision is overturned all the existing browser shipping an EME module will continue to ship with one and all the sites that require DRM will continue to do so. It's not as if overturning this decision will have any practical effect on current reality. Browser makers are free to ignore things if EME is overturned.
Tried it and most sites still just give you the shitty mobile site these days. Wells Fargo is a prime example where you can't reach the desktop site on a phone. The mobile site for no good reason has multiple features removed such as simply seeing your account and routing numbers and viewing your statements which only involves opening a PDF. Neither should require a desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's cute how naive some people are who think that they'll freely be allowed to FF, rev, stop and skip in software that's explicitly been created for the sake of taking control out of the hands
And yet I can freely do all those things on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and basically every other streaming service using EME.
Shifting the goalposts. How cute.
No they're not.
Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.
https://www.federalreserve.gov...
If you're going claim authority ona subject you might want to actually be informed first.
It's not illegal.
Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.
https://www.federalreserve.gov...
No, dumbass. The crime was committing insider trading.
No, it's just some shitty audio hosting website.
And you represent a tiny fraction of the market. Most consumers are not rolling their own
Or maybe companies should stop acting like stalkers and that they own you and should have control over your personal life? Yeah, I know, that's just crazy. How dare employees expect to have a life outside the purview of their employer.
Because going to Netflix.com, clicking a video and it plays is tough to do?
They can.
And I agreed. I was just adding more info.
Why do you presume they won't just keep using EME? They were already doing so long before EME was even approved.
EME will still exist regardless of what comes of this appeal. It's not as if browser makers are legally obligated to stop shipping EME even if Tim did reverse the decision. They were doing so long before EME was even approved.
So what do they expect? Basically, a VCR experience. Including the option to fast forward, rewind, skip what they don't give a shit about, pause where they want to and watch it as often as they like for buying once.
What exactly does pause, fast forward and rewind have to do with EME? You can freely do all those things with EME.
Offer that and they won't bother to ask their geek friend how to get what they want.
The vast majority of people don't do this. They simply just install the Netflix or Amazon Prime video app on the 100s of devices that are supported, log in to their account and the start playing videos. It's so cute that you think people need a "geek" to do this when they don't.
It's so cute that you think your opinion is held by the vast majority of people. Might want to step out of your echo chamber every once in a while.
But even if this EME decision is overturned all the existing browser shipping an EME module will continue to ship with one and all the sites that require DRM will continue to do so. It's not as if overturning this decision will have any practical effect on current reality. Browser makers are free to ignore things if EME is overturned.
Good job, Captain Obvious. The GP was clearly being sarcastic.
Your comparing make believe to real life? Uhhhh... what?!!
It sounds like they were just playing Theresa May's theme song.
And corporations are well-known for being honest and completely transparent.
Don't worry. They'll purchase one year of useless identity theft protection to make it right.
If you ignore the fact that the old site had a years-old bug pagination bug that the Slashdork web monkeys could never seem to fix.
But unless every site uses that same concatenated minified file you get no caching benefit. That's the part you seem to be missing.
Tried it and most sites still just give you the shitty mobile site these days. Wells Fargo is a prime example where you can't reach the desktop site on a phone. The mobile site for no good reason has multiple features removed such as simply seeing your account and routing numbers and viewing your statements which only involves opening a PDF. Neither should require a desktop.
Because we haven't invented automated build tools to do all that work for us? Oh wait, we have.