OK, I just did a quick read up of champerty and maintenance on wikipipedia. According to that font of absolute truth, while these acts in my opinion do fall under the definition (as provided by wikipedia!) of champerty and maintenance, the problem is that, also according to wikipedia, it is no longer a crime to do so in many jurisdictions. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not it is that, because if it is it's not legally wrong to do so.
So that there is more reason to force upgrades on consumers.
When I was a kid, a TV was like a fridge or washing machine - you'd buy a new one every decade or so. Maybe have a 2nd smaller one for the kids, which is most likely a hand-me-down from when the main TV was upgraded to an OMG 68cm so the 48cm it was replacing was moved off to the kids room.
But by incorporating many unnecessary technologies in the TV - media players, web browsers, players for specific eco-systems (netflix, amazon etc) that aren't upgradeable, or that they only support for a year or 2 with upgrades (like a mobile phone), there are more opportunities to foist upgrades on users.
I also have one remote control to control everything, and while I do have a smart TV, it has no data connectivity outside HDMI cables.
My one remote control controls a HTPC that does everything except displaying the actual image. It plays movies on the HTPC out to the TV, music, free-to-air TV, it records that TV if I want to time-shift it. If I want to surf the net using my TV as my display, I do, but the surfing occurs on the HTPC using a wireless (or wired if i feel like it) keyboard, mouse, or the remote control which is a wireless pointer as well. I can play games without switching devices (Civ, Battlefield and whatnot). I can update video and audio codecs on the HTPC whenever I need to to play the latest and greatest format, without having to worry about the TV vendor refusing to update its codec set in the hopes I'll buy a complete new TV just to get the latest codecs. I can use the latest software, browsers, and whatever else I want.
The only time I need to replace the TV is when either the screen breaks, or there have been significant changes in dislay hardware technology. E.g. CRT -> 720p/1080p Plasma -> 1080p LED backlit LCD -> 4k OLED HDR. Not every time there is a minor software technology or hardware change like xVid -> x264 -> x265. USB 2 -> 3 -> 3.1 (Type A or C) gen2, or 100Mb -> 1Gb (hopefully soon! -> 2.5Gb -> 5Gb), or wireless A/G -> N -> AC , and so on.
"Alexa, order two gallons of bleach from Amazon Fresh, for delivery today."
Maybe you should of asked Alexa how to forensically remove blood-stains. Although I don't know if it'd give the right information, would be interesting to find out ;)
You'd be better off ordering 1 gallon of chlorine-based bleach and 1 gallon of oxygen-based bleach and using 1 after the other (not at the same time - don't mix them together) on the blood-stains.
Chlorine-based bleach destroys DNA in blood samples, so they can't get a DNA match from the bloodstains. However luminol will still detect the presence of blood (or more specifically, the red blood cells based on iron).
So to defeat the luminol test, you then apply the oxygen-based bleach, which will neutralize the iron in the red blood cells that luminol uses to detect the blood. However, it won't destroy the DNA in the blood stain.
Therefore you need to use both to defeat the luminol and destroy the DNA.
The third-party doctrine is a United States legal theory that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy." A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.
Unless there is specific case law that excludes that information from 3rd-party, how is it unconstitutional? I think it should be unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean it is. Which is maybe what Amazon is trying to establish by refusing to hand over that information and, hopefully, prepared to defend its position in court if necessary.
It would not surprise me if Denuvo was licensed on a per-copy sold with Denuvo basis (or some other similar unit-time basis). So at some point the $-cost-per-unit vs $-lost-per-pirated copy (if u believe in piracy as lost sales - which their financial departments usually do) is no longer worth it.
Therefore the developers will stop shipping new copies of the software with Denuvo and 'patch up' extant copies to the same level so they don't have to support different editions.
That is some truly impressive mental gymnastics there, it's a pity unlike normal gymnastics there isn't an olympic event for it, I really think you'd have a shot with the skill you've displayed here in trying to lay the blame on anyone but the ones who deserve it.
I suspect the Olympic committee knows they couldn't compete with the US Presidential elections in that particular event.
If the game developer can prove that the game has been hacked within x time of release while also proving a correct setup of the DRM, it could be something a DRM-manufacturer would promise or something an AAA-studios lawyers would specify after the DRM-producer oversells its product.
Maybe the game devs are cracking it themselves?
I can see it now, 1 week before the 3-month deadline is up, they release the crack themselves into the wild so they get their money back while still having had DRM on their game in the critical 'box-office' initial 3-months.
On the falsehood hood, I'm torn (without referring to a dictionary - too easy), but I'll accept that a "falsehood" is stating something that's false, and can be whether you know it or not, whereas a lie is always knowingly stating a falsehood. But, tbh that's not how I'd use it, to me, both the phrases "stating a falsehood" and "lieing" are synonyms, mean the same thing.
For example, if I lend a box full of sheets to a friend, and that friend returns the box, but with a little extra, say a kilogram of coke in it, but I don't open the box, I just take it back and stick it in my hallway cupboard, in common vernacular someone might say I was in possession of a kg of coke. And, if I said I was not in possession of the coke, under your reasoning I'd have stated a falsehood.
However, under the law, since I wasn't aware of the coke in the box, then legally I would not be in possession of the coke, for purposes of charges relating to "being in possession of". Therefore it would not be a falsehood, or lie, to say I wasn't in possession.
However, in the second case, I cannot agree.
A criminal is someone who has been found guilty of a crime in a court of law.
If you are charged with homicide, and the jury verdict is not guilty (e.g. self-defense), then you have not committed a crime. And, by definition, you have not committed an illegal act.
If you have justification for breaching the letter of the law (killing someone, but it was self-defense) then you have not committed an illegal act.
It is up to the courts to determine the illegality, or not, of an act, not the police or the DA's office. They arrest and prosecute someone on suspicion of committing an illegal act, but the courts are the ones who decide whether you have or have-not committed the illegal act. And if they do not convict (not guilty, not proven, hung jury, mistrial, whatever the phrasing used that isn't "guilty"), then you have not committed a criminal act, therefore you have not committed a crime.