This is the app called Franco Kernel Manager, one of the best kernel managers that are out there… Even when it was outdated (which I think that’s the cause it got booted from the PlayStore?).

I used it to check the process of my phone and monitor the active and idle drain mostly, I paid for it a long time ago, but now it just fails to check the licence and it doesn’t let me use it fully… I think there must be a cracked APK over there…

EDIT:

Fortunately the app is back in the store and hopefully that update version comes soon enough!

  • pelletbucket@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    okay but if that’s your purpose then there’s no problem with purchasing and pirating at the same time.

    • neatchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely. I do that regularly. Purchase to support the creators, pirate to meet some specific use case.

      • pelletbucket@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        like I’ve had more than one super good YouTube video essay go missing, getting permanently pulled because of some copyright issue with a background shot or something, so I’ll actually add really good YouTube videos to my Plex library just in case as well

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Totally. Though, that case can be a tiny bit tricky. Like, people should be allowed to remove stuff from the Internet that they’ve created if they want, but it should also be okay to archive content that may be abandoned or lost. Hard to create rules that differentiate the two effectively for enforcement

          • pelletbucket@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            the specific ones I’m talking about, they were removed by YouTube and not at the creators behest. like one of them is about the three stooges and whoever owns The Three stooges material complained about some copyrighted material in the background horse shit

            • neatchee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure I’m just thinking about how you’d write a law or policy that accommodated both reasonable scenarios

              • pelletbucket@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                well it’s a really interesting concept. there’s really no other form of media where you could put something out there and then recall it somehow. like if you wrote a book that you didn’t like, there’s absolutely no legal way you could prevent people from reading it, etc. sort of ties into the Barbra Streisand effect

                • neatchee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What’s interesting with the comparison to books is that you can stop it from being published. You can’t force people to give up the copy they already bought, but they can’t make more copies and distribute it.

                  Hard to draw that distinction in the digital world

                  And if you want a better comparison, though of YouTube like a drive-in theater. You’re not allowed to make a copy of the film with your camcorder and go distribute it.

                  • pelletbucket@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    it’s almost more of a philosophical question than a legal one. sure, maybe they can prevent you from recording the drive-in movie and showing it to other people, but would they have the moral authority to say that you couldn’t repeat the storyline to someone else?

                    let’s say someone produces some documentary that ends up containing some hideously embarrassing error. something that could really ruin some third party’s life. you pull the documentary from theaters, you pull it from streaming services, anybody who owns a copy owns it illegally. but, anybody who’s seen it, or heard it described, could sit down in front of an audience and act out the entire thing piece by piece, attributing the entire thing to the original producer’s name.

                    it ties into a line of thinking I had the other day when reading my credit card number to somebody over the phone. me talking to another person, giving them digit by digit, it was like two computers talking but we were people. if we had been computers, using a speaker and a microphone to communicate numbers in that way, we would have laughed at it and called it stone age technology, but that still how humans communicate with each other.

          • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Like, people should be allowed to remove stuff from the Internet that they’ve created if they want,

            No, no they shouldn’t. This is antithetical to the generally good intention behind copyright.

            The point was not to allow people to take away things they have created, but to permit them to profit in order that they might choose to make more, and be able to support their life in a capitalist system. These intentions are largely good.

            Allowing people to take away what they have created is the opposite of this intent, and harmful to the public good, which benefits from as many works as possible being accessible to the public.

            • PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Playing devil’s advocate here, but is it truly a public good to have as many works as possible accessible to the public?

              What if misinformation outweighs real information in the aggregate?

              • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’d say generally yes but maybe not in every instance. Consider it an overall principle rather than a hard no exceptions rule.

                That said, copyright/creator control is not the correct tool to use to do so.

            • neatchee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You misunderstand my meaning: they shouldn’t be able to go out and remove all copies of something in existence. But they should be able to limit distribution of the thing they created, up to and including stopping distribution.

              • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why? How is it better for society and people overall if they have the power to do this?

                Allowing the creators to profit is understandable and necessary in our current system, but what benefit is gained for the public by them being permitted to stop distribution altogether?

                If there is a benefit to the public and society that I am not seeing, then ok, but ‘they created it so they should control it’ is harmful to the people at large, and that should be prioritized over a creator’s ego or desire for control.

                • neatchee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because the right to determine distribution channels and the right to prevent distribution are inseparable. I challenge you to write a law that successfully implements one but not the other. Any law you write that guarantees a creator control over who distributes their work and how will inherently allow that creator to literally or functionally prevent distribution.

                  The alternative is saying that creators don’t have a right to control distribution at all - anyone must be allowed to reproduce and distribute, even if not for free - and that is a known disincentive to invention and economic growth; there’s a reason we only enforce that requirement in select places like standards and protocols

        • kratoz29@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          so I’ll actually add really good YouTube videos to my Plex library

          How do you achieve that, manually or automated?