I’m sure glad I didn’t pick coke. EWWWWWW

ok… 2

I don’t wanna. (＃`Д´)

no u

Whether it is legal to distribute that key does not depend on which platform is distributing it.

When lawyers write a formal letter it is backed by an implied threat that it could become litigious if the demands aren’t met.

Launching on steam didn’t make distributing the key illegal. If its illegal on steam, it’s illegal even when self-hosted.

Nintnedo took action because they knew they had leverage against valve.

So are they going to have to pay it back or did the FTC make a report for nothing?

I don’t think this is nintendo’s doing.

“We have determined that you forked a public repo against which we previously received a DMCA notice.”

From the email from gitlab, this sounds like gitlab being overly cautious and removing all forks themselves.

Dolphin was not taken down. Dolphin was not allowed to launch on Steam because Nintendo threatened Valve with a lawsuit. Regardless of the merits of the case, Valve doesn’t want to pay to defend a case so they can distribute a free emulator, so they caved and blocked Dolphin’s Steam release.

Nintendo claimed Dolphin violates the DMCA but have not taken any direct legal action against Dolphin as far as I am aware.

There are many emulators for nintendo consoles. Very few are taken down by legal actions, because it is legal to develop an emulator. Hardware is functional and cannot be copyrighted.

Yuzu’s problem was they supported piracy. They made special patches of the emulator to play leaked games which they sold through patreon. That’s how you get sued for piracy.

Ryujinx does not allow discussions of piracy, commercial ROMs, or firmware on any of their own platforms. The emulator can play commercial games, but they only link to instructions on how to dump your own cartridges and firmware from legally purchased sources.

That is how smart developers protect themselves from lawsuits. It has worked for Dolphin, and many other emulators. Ryujinx will probably be just as safe.

I did look specifically for that, but I couldn’t find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can’t be required to prove or claim to be disabled.

I read the some of the text of the ADA. That’s the extent of my research. If you’re interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.

My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don’t want to conclude anything beyond that, because that’s what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.

If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.

The ADA is a complex law, like all laws. Food allergies are mentioned by the ADA.

Although food allergies don’t require proactive accommodation, disabled people are entitled to equal access despite their disability.

If a restaurant offers no substitutions that’s fine. But if a restaurant offers substitutions but refuses it for those with allergies, that’s not fine.

If a restaurant doesn’t stock non-allergic ingredients it doesn’t have to. But if the restaurant will stock special ingredients upon request, they must do the same for disabled customers.

In this case, starbucks DOES stock and offer non-dairy milks. Using a different milk is probably a reasonable accommodation. The ADA has rules against charging extra for reasonable accomodations.

The conclusion that starbucks charging extra is a violation of the ADA is not an unreasonable one.

The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.

Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.

The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It’s not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.

The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.

Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.

As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks’s milks doesn’t seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.

No see my other comment for details

The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.

36.307 Accessible or special goods:

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities.

(b) A public accommodation shall order accessible or special goods at the request of an individual with disabilities, if, in the normal course of its operation, it makes special orders on request for unstocked goods, and if the accessible or special goods can be obtained from a supplier with whom the public accommodation customarily does business.

© Examples of accessible or special goods include items such as Brailled versions of books, books on audio cassettes, closed-captioned video tapes, special sizes or lines of clothing, and special foods to meet particular dietary needs.

From my understanding Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk. As they do not do special inventory orders for customers, they could remove the non-dairy milk options from the menu without violating the ADA.

But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:

36.301© Charges.

A public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.

In my amateur reasercher’s opinion, this case seems sound. Charging extra for milk alternatives is probably a violation of the ADA.

I’m advocating you learn to interpret texts by taking note of what it says rather than what you wish it said.

I do not, nor have I ever advocated censorship. You made that up.

Look at the image below the caption.