I thought this wasn't allowed per the Play Store terms?
Play-distributed apps requiring or accepting payment for access to in-app features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods (collectively “in-app purchases”), must use Google Play’s billing system for those transactions
Multiple desktop workspaces? Different QubesOS VMs?
That or they are backdoored and someone found out.
Could be unlikely, maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but who knows.
Claims (yours or otherwise) without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The base plan for YouTube TV is $82.99/month, and I'd say it has by far the most ads of any streaming service.
Hello Daniel. Why do you keep creating alts and then calling everything fake news with no proof besides "google it yourself"?
I think the only real answer is going to be "it depends on too many factors people here can only LARP about really understanding, so ask a lawyer", and even then it still depends on what every individual judge in someone's case thinks.
I think it's worth mentioning that this only applies to unmasking an ISP's customers, not individual website/social media users.
In common with the opposition that ruled out the use of DMCA subpoenas in the early RIAA case, the ISP argued that these subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers, as defined under § 512(a) of the DMCA.
The Hawaii District Court agreed with Cox’s reasoning last year and quashed the subpoena. The ruling concluded that DMCA subpoenas typically don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly.
Well... like Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Source: