By "legitimate" I mean artists who create original, creative works and contribute to the cultural and artistic ecosystem, as opposed to anonymous, mass-generated content that seems designed primarily to exploit platform algorithms
I hear what you are saying but that's kind of an established-music-industry centric view. There are all kinds of musicians, not just "recording artists" in the 20th century industry mold.
There’s a rich diversity of musicians beyond the traditional "recording artist" mold. My concern is less about sticking to the established industry model and more about ensuring platforms support creators whose work reflects genuine artistic effort and expression
Do those not also get released as records and do those artists not also do live shows?
I know of at least one record label that specialises in releasing game music and I’ve seen Amon Tobin (producer who make the soundtrack for a Splinter Cell game, amongst other things) live.
Movie and game composers are literally work for hire. It's their employers who may or may not release a record related to that employer's work that may or may not credit the people involved.
Even the extremely successful and popular composers are not necessarily releasing records or doing live shows. Even John Williams is primarily a conductor and a classical composer who didn't really start "touring" until 2002 or so. Same for Hans Zimmer. He doesn't release "records". Studios hiring him release movie soundtracks for which he was specifically hired. Etc.
According to your definition of "legitimate artists" these artists are not legitimate.
there's probably a difference between doing maybe a handful of live shows spontaneously, and having a career that's filled with live shows and tours. having a "record" (a whatever physical release) is kind of irrelevant cause anyone can put anything on anything, live shows and tours are more complicated and some people just don't do it, and it's a yet more bizarre way to measure "legitimacy" cause again, so much music and so many artists just don't do that.
Government cannot take money from a crypto wallet because of cryptography. They could only do it if they compelled you to hand over your secret keys against your will. They also may not even know you have a crypto wallet since it is not registered in your name and is very easy to hide.
On the other hand, government can sieze funds from your bank account by seeking a court order or whatever legal instrument is needed in your jurisdiction.
Exactly, and that's why in EU a transaction to a self-custody wallet from an exchange you need to declare that wallet as your own. Then when the government want to seize your BTC they can track from that wallet onwards all transactions.
The problem with crypto as a hedge against government overreach is with fiat exchanges. I hope more businesses start accepting crypto and you won't need to go trough an exchange that often.
What they can do is (in England & Wales, for example) is to impose a confiscation order on you so when you do end up liquidating your easily traceable crypto current, they will simply come after those assets.
no, while you are typing, there are senior finance legislators that are reviewing multi-hundred page reports where "the only legal way to trade is with a licensed broker" i.e. you Joe Citizen cannot hold your own keys. If you have not heard of this, welcome to old news in the USA and elsewhere. This is not fringe or conspiracy at all.. this is lawyers in the backroom for the last year(s).
If Apple wanted to implement a simlar feature, they would just do it. They wouldn't buy a 3rd party app when they could just do it themselves.
The value proposition of these kind of third party UI apps is that the developer cleverly figured out how to manipulate Apple's APIs to do something Apple didn't really intend. Apple themselves can just write their own private API to do it, they don't need the clever hacks.
I'm not a lawyer but one would definitely let you know that at least in the US, software without a license is more dangerous than software with even a very restrictive one. Someone can come along and determine the license at any time. So there is good reason to point it out unless you crave legal jeopardy.
An “informal license” means a statement such as “do whatever you like with this” or “you can redistribute this code and change it.”
In the United States, these licenses are supposed to be interpreted based on what the author seems to intend. So they probably mean what they appear to mean. That would make them non-copyleft free software licenses and compatible with the GNU GPL. However, an unlucky choice of wording could give it a different meaning.
However, many other countries have a more rigid approach to copyright licenses. There is no telling what courts in those countries might decide an informal statement means. Courts might even decide that it is not a license at all.
If you want your code to be free, don't invite gratuitous trouble for your users. Please choose and apply an established free software license. We offer recommendations that we suggest you follow.
