Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)DR
Posts
7
Comments
396
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • My understanding is that the IA had implemented a digital library, where they had (whether paid or not) some number of licenses for a selection of books. This implementation had DRM of some variety that meant you could only read the book while it was checked out. In theory, this means if the IA has 10 licenses of a book, only 10 people have a usable copy they borrowed from the IA at a time.

    And then the IA disabled the DRM system, somehow, and started limitlessly lending the books they had copies of to anyone that asked.

    I definitely don't like the obnoxious copyright system in the USA, but what the IA did seems obviously wrong against the agreement they entered into. Like if your local library got a copy of Book X and then when someone wanted to borrow it they just copied it right there and let you keep the copy.

    ETA: updated my wording. I don't believe what the IA did was morally wrong, per se, but rather against the agreement I presume they entered into with the owners of the books they lent.

  • I predict that in under 4 years, he'll have run to Russia for sanctuary, where he'll tweet for the rest of his days. He'll make some kind of comparison between himself and Snowden. The media will start to report less and less on what he says, and people will pay less and less attention to him as he is no longer able to do rallies.

  • I'm in the same boat. There are a lot of parts of the Internet that should be free, but YouTube is not one of them. Video hosting is one of the most resource intensive services around, and if we as consumers aren't paying for it they'll find a worse way to fund it.

  • I think so. In a way, it makes sense -- a lot of people are of the (shitty) opinion that if you take lewd pictures of yourself, it's your fault if they're disseminated. With lewd deepfakes, there's less opportunity for victim blaming, and therefore wider support.