Tetr.io is great — it does have ads (unless you have Adblock) but not impactful during gameplay at all and is usually the go-to for multiplayer games. Another normal Tetris game that’s more single-player oriented is jstris.
Tetr.io looks great but all the visual flair makes my laptop's fans go crazy and adds small but noticeable amounts of latency to the game.
Sure, my 2020 Intel Macbook Air is a bit pokey compared to the newest models, but shouldn't a 3 year old computer be more than enough to play 40 year old game?
> I simply ensure it's not easy to strike me in a way that puts me at a disadvantage. I don't use software distribution platforms like Steam (despite even having been invited to such platforms), nor do I publish for mobile app stores. Doing so would put me at risk of becoming the underdog in a DMCA lawsuit, which is an impossible task to win unless you already have the assets.
> Instead, TTC would have to sue me directly, which would put us at equal footing.
I’m not certain of this, but aren’t the domain registrar (in this case Namecheap), DNS host (in this case Cloudflare) and web host (uncertain) also parties that DMCA takedown notices can be sent to, and who will consequently disable the domain in some way? Or at least one or two of these three?
Sure, it’s probably a slightly higher barrier, as the typical software distribution platforms often make takedowns easier than they need to be and the attacker is more familiar with their procedures, but you’re still using others’ platforms to distribute things.
Web host very likely (and cdn), DNS host depends on country and it's trivial to circumvent anyway, dns registrar not (unless there is direct trademark infringement).
Registrars and DNS providers are often wary of taking domains down and will look at the contents and legitimacy of any requests to do so. And for a registrar or DNS host to take tetr.io down, the domain name or content it points to would need to include the word 'tetris', which it does not.
And the barrier isn’t that high. I’ve seen a web host company (Hetzner) take down an entire website because a company made a bogus claim about a single page amongst thousands. I don’t even think it was DMCA, they just had their lawyers send an email. Had a human at Hetzner taken the time to visit said website, they would’ve seen the company’s request wasn’t legitimate.
I had also never heard of this, so did a bit of googling. Seems to be:
The problem for companies using the .io domain is that it represents the continued oppression of the original people of the Chagos archipelago. All proceeds from the registration of domain names goes to the Internet Computer Bureau, a former British company now owned by Affilias, a US company. Some of the profits from sales were supposed to go to support the territories, but the British government declared it has never received any money for this, and subsequently denied any responsibility for the support of the Chagossian people.
Nonetheless, OP was raising awareness. The more awareness is raised, the more developers will be aware. Then, more developers will have to make a conscious choice (whether good or bad).
Good point. I was thinking of getting a .io domain and you persuaded me not to. I knew what it was, but never really made the connection somehow.
Also worth considering whether it is right to buy other domains on TLDs run by Affilias and Donuts.
Your link to a .io says "Also, find a different TLD."!
The Chagossians have lost cases in both the UK and the US to try to return and the International Court's ruling is just advisory so it looks like they are not going to win that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians#Court_battles
I cannot see the US being willing to leave unless provided with an alternative Indian Ocean base. That would probably mean throwing lots of money at some country.
This was an unhelpful way to highlight these issues. You can, but please also boycott sentry.io, github.io, gitlab.io, itch.io ect while you're at it, rather than blast a Tetris website?
You said you cannot make an ethical purchase in a capitalist society. I live in one, so by your rules I can only act unethically. This means effectively, there is no good or bad. This is a popular method of debasing people. Maybe you aren’t aware of that, but the poster you did the dog pile with certainly is.
I believe this was 10 or 15 years ago, but TTC really went hard on getting rid of Tetris clones... Even the x86 bootable one from a couple years back got shut down. I wouldn't risk it personally.
Don't try to apply standards of common sense to legal protections. You and I, and any sensible person, know if would be foolish to interpret a random blog post as legal advice. But a bad actor acting in bad faith could _pretend_ that they were misled by that advice, and conduct a frivolous lawsuit (or, more likely, the _threat_ of a frivolous lawsuit) for profit. By the simple act of putting ~20 words at the top of the article, the author has protected themselves from this. Simple Cost-Benefit Analysis makes this clearly worthwhile.
that's obviously false, nothing could protect anyone from being threatened (nor from some frivolous lawsuit), and to do CBA you'd need to actually do analysis of what the benefit is
(also, where is your legal liability disclaimer if it's clearly worthwhile? You've made a public legal assessment of the op's legal liability disclaimer)
> that's obviously false, nothing could protect anyone from being threatened (nor from some frivolous lawsuit)
Apologies - I assumed you had the ability to read between the lines that they were "protected" in the sense that they could safely ignore any such threat because they could be confident that it would fail, whereas without this protection they might feel vulnerable enough to need to defend themselves with it.
You could try reading the lines before impugning someone's ability to read between them. Frivolous lawsuit by definition doesn't care about legal merits, including your own fail criterion:
"[frivolous litigation] includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly faill (Wikipedia)
So again, no magic disclaimers can help you here, you still face the risks that someone is going to impose (or threat to impose) the burden of legal proceedings regardless of legal merit on you
> Education, knowledge, and experience in areas of the law
> The ability and experience to apply that knowledge to specific fact patterns
> An understanding of how the application of the law affects the client's legal rights
> Practical expertise in writing legal documents or other documents to support the client's position
> State or federal licenses that allow legal representation in court
Whether you write "this is not legal advice" or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it actually is legal advice or not. The phrase is used by actual lawyers when they don't want to mislead the general public about thinking that the legal information they provide is legal advice. Non-lawyers use it to feel fancy and sophisticated.
Still, though - the original statement wasn't false, it _wasn't_ legal advice, and the clarification did make that clear in such a way that a reader couldn't be confused into thinking that it was reliable. So - it wasn't a _useless_ thing to write, as the original commenter implied, even if it doesn't have legal weight as I mistakenly thought.
Nice goal post shifting, though you're still mistaken in how low you assess the intelligence of the readers (and even real "legal advice" can be unreliable, so you're a bit confused here as well)
(Can't edit an old comment, but - I have been informed below that this is incorrect! Still, though - it doesn't _hurt_ to clarify that you are not an expert in an area when describing your choices so that a reader can make an appropriate evaluation, even if that clarification doesn't provide legal protection in the way that I mistakenly thought it did)
Looks like a Z piece rotated to me. Check out the top of the waffle press clam shell, the outline doesn't have a 1x1 there. Do you mean the 1x1 in the middle between T and L without the block imprint?
some basic easy to do things deter many plaintiffs
basically you want to discourage filing any complaint at all
and then you want a summary judgement to be meaningless and ignorable to you
and then you want to be able to rationalize an argument in your favor
so forming a business entity with limited liability is the first step
the second step is not having publicly listed ownership, which is mostly just choosing the right jurisdiction to form your business
the third step is taking advantage of differences in states laws. one state might allow the business to be tied to a PO box, while the plaintiff’s state doesn't allow serving process to a PO box
for intermediaries in hosting your digital products, pick them wisely if you expect liability in a certain country
This seems entirely standard for that kind of game. Trolls absolutely will try to rules lawyer so articulating points clearly that ought to be common sense makes it simpler to moderate transparently.
What points do you take issue with?
46 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] thread- Finesse, https://harddrop.com/wiki/Movement_Finesse
- Perfect clear(s opener), https://harddrop.com/wiki/Perfect_clear
- 180 spins, https://harddrop.com/wiki/Rotate#180_rotations
Check out King of Stackers, NullpoMino, and Cultris, too!
Sure, my 2020 Intel Macbook Air is a bit pokey compared to the newest models, but shouldn't a 3 year old computer be more than enough to play 40 year old game?
> Instead, TTC would have to sue me directly, which would put us at equal footing.
I’m not certain of this, but aren’t the domain registrar (in this case Namecheap), DNS host (in this case Cloudflare) and web host (uncertain) also parties that DMCA takedown notices can be sent to, and who will consequently disable the domain in some way? Or at least one or two of these three?
Sure, it’s probably a slightly higher barrier, as the typical software distribution platforms often make takedowns easier than they need to be and the attacker is more familiar with their procedures, but you’re still using others’ platforms to distribute things.
I can attest it happens.
> it’s probably a slightly higher barrier
And the barrier isn’t that high. I’ve seen a web host company (Hetzner) take down an entire website because a company made a bogus claim about a single page amongst thousands. I don’t even think it was DMCA, they just had their lawyers send an email. Had a human at Hetzner taken the time to visit said website, they would’ve seen the company’s request wasn’t legitimate.
The problem for companies using the .io domain is that it represents the continued oppression of the original people of the Chagos archipelago. All proceeds from the registration of domain names goes to the Internet Computer Bureau, a former British company now owned by Affilias, a US company. Some of the profits from sales were supposed to go to support the territories, but the British government declared it has never received any money for this, and subsequently denied any responsibility for the support of the Chagossian people.
https://tamouse.github.io/blog/politics/2019/10/02/why-is-th...
Nonetheless, OP was raising awareness. The more awareness is raised, the more developers will be aware. Then, more developers will have to make a conscious choice (whether good or bad).
Also worth considering whether it is right to buy other domains on TLDs run by Affilias and Donuts.
Your link to a .io says "Also, find a different TLD."!
The Chagossians have lost cases in both the UK and the US to try to return and the International Court's ruling is just advisory so it looks like they are not going to win that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians#Court_battles
I cannot see the US being willing to leave unless provided with an alternative Indian Ocean base. That would probably mean throwing lots of money at some country.
And where's the error in reasoning, if we exclude your hurt feelings?
>This means effectively, there is no good or bad.
That's a stretch. There is more to life than mercantile consumption.
> This is a popular method of debasing people. Maybe you aren’t aware of that, but the poster you did the dog pile with certainly is.
I don't know what this means.
https://itch.io/takedowns/1499978
They haven't managed to scare the developer into dropping the project though: https://akouzoukos.com/apotris/
And here I was about to do just that - get some professional legal advice from a random blog post...
that's obviously false, nothing could protect anyone from being threatened (nor from some frivolous lawsuit), and to do CBA you'd need to actually do analysis of what the benefit is
(also, where is your legal liability disclaimer if it's clearly worthwhile? You've made a public legal assessment of the op's legal liability disclaimer)
Apologies - I assumed you had the ability to read between the lines that they were "protected" in the sense that they could safely ignore any such threat because they could be confident that it would fail, whereas without this protection they might feel vulnerable enough to need to defend themselves with it.
"[frivolous litigation] includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly faill (Wikipedia)
So again, no magic disclaimers can help you here, you still face the risks that someone is going to impose (or threat to impose) the burden of legal proceedings regardless of legal merit on you
> Legal advice requires:
> Education, knowledge, and experience in areas of the law
> The ability and experience to apply that knowledge to specific fact patterns
> An understanding of how the application of the law affects the client's legal rights
> Practical expertise in writing legal documents or other documents to support the client's position
> State or federal licenses that allow legal representation in court
Whether you write "this is not legal advice" or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it actually is legal advice or not. The phrase is used by actual lawyers when they don't want to mislead the general public about thinking that the legal information they provide is legal advice. Non-lawyers use it to feel fancy and sophisticated.
Still, though - the original statement wasn't false, it _wasn't_ legal advice, and the clarification did make that clear in such a way that a reader couldn't be confused into thinking that it was reliable. So - it wasn't a _useless_ thing to write, as the original commenter implied, even if it doesn't have legal weight as I mistakenly thought.
You might get a good score, whatever it means, but no waffle.
basically you want to discourage filing any complaint at all
and then you want a summary judgement to be meaningless and ignorable to you
and then you want to be able to rationalize an argument in your favor
so forming a business entity with limited liability is the first step
the second step is not having publicly listed ownership, which is mostly just choosing the right jurisdiction to form your business
the third step is taking advantage of differences in states laws. one state might allow the business to be tied to a PO box, while the plaintiff’s state doesn't allow serving process to a PO box
for intermediaries in hosting your digital products, pick them wisely if you expect liability in a certain country
https://tetr.io/about/rules/
I don't find it condescending because I think I'm not a jerk but I'm aware that a lot of people are jerks.