Nitpick: It's probably not the devs so much as the capitalist owners and management collaborators. I'd guess most of the people making the games would be happy to have someone play their game at all. It's not like they typically get a cut of the profits (again: capitalism)
People are emotional creatures.
Someone was joking in another thread, but maybe we should seriously consider just taking socialism and calling it, like, americanism.
It's another manifestation of separate rules for the rich and everyone else.
I've been happy with Bandcamp, though they got sold so they're no longer independent.
But the model is you can stream for free however many times the artist has it set to, and then you're expected to buy it. Once you buy it, its yours DRM-free forever.
So if you buy an album or two a month, it costs similar to a subscription but you build up a library. After a while, you might find there are months you don't buy anything, but just listen to what you already bought.
In my imagination there are increasingly desperate actions they could do to stop the bill from proceeding. Pull the fire alarm. Start a fire. Cover all the chairs with honey. I don't know. I feel like if it looked like a portal to hell was about to open I would break a lot of norms and rules to stop it
You said that most laws require intent.
I said that strict liability exists. This was admittedly, a nitpick.
You did an on sequitur about how the US has a police problem, and said "These aren’t normal laws in other countries fyi.". I took that to imply the concept of strict liability doesn't exist in other laws, but maybe you meant something else. Maybe you meant it's not common?
I then pointed out that the concept originated in Britain. You said "If it originated there, why doesn’t Canada have it lmfao.", which is factually incorrect as far as I can tell. Canada has a concept of strict liability.
You then said,
Not for sex offenders like pissing in public, of course it exists in other areas of law, but those aren’t applicable to all other areas.
Ignoring what feels like a moving goal post, maybe this reveals where we diverged. Maybe you thought I was saying all laws are strict liability? I wasn't.
The most famous example of strict liability is statutory rape. This is off topic from guys pissing in a parking lot (though I wouldn't be surprised if ICE goons do other crimes). https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/statutory-rape.html
As most statutory rape laws appear as "strict liability" offenses, this limits the amount of legal defenses available to someone accused.
The link I provided was a wikipedia article is clearly not an exhaustive answer of all things on the topic. If you do click through to the criminal article, it does mention a case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
Anyway, this is a pointless, unpleasant, argument.
A 30 second search revealed that Canada has some strict liability laws.
I think that's the "only Democrats have agency" thing that comes up. When Republicans are horrible shits people are just like yeah they're horrible but like you don't blame the bear for doing bear stuff. But everyone else is held to normal human standards
Usually when you make a deal with the devil you get something.
Most (proper laws) laws require intent.
Some laws are "strict liability". I think some sex crimes are, for example
Remove some Republicans from office via the 14th amendment.
Lead protests. Not just parades but actual disruptive protests
Back left wing candidates
Use any and all procedural tricks to delay things.
other stuff that moderators don't like
Sometimes I wonder about if the US had stayed a colony longer. Slavery probably would have ended sooner. Probably have a better government structure.