This is the app called Franco Kernel Manager, one of the best kernel managers that are out there… Even when it was outdated (which I think that’s the cause it got booted from the PlayStore?).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

  • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months 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
      2
      ·
      7 months 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
        ·
        7 months 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
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months 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
        ·
        7 months 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
          ·
          7 months 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