BreakDecks
- 0 Posts
- 38 Comments
I think you might be confused, albeit by a poorly written Wikipedia article.
First of all, it isn’t clear what it is meant by “removing the waitlists and expanding access to all readers”. It doesn’t seem to mean uncapping loans without backing them with physical books. In fact, the part of the wiki you quoted is the first of two mentions of the word “waitlist”, a word that doesn’t appear in either of the sources cited for those sections.
- https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/03/20/judge-hears-oral-arguments-in-hachette-book-group-v-internet-archive/
- https://www.eff.org/files/2023/03/29/188_opinion.pdf
In fact, the first cited source says this:
IA’s attorney argued that the publishers had not offered empirical evidence of market harm in this case, focusing on the fact that when a library lends out a CDL scan, it does so in lieu of a physical book, “simulating the limitations of physical books.” This is due to CDL’s “owned to loaned” ratio requirement: a library can only loan out the number of CDL scans as it has physical books in its collection, and can only loan these scans out to one patron at a time.
And this:
Plaintiffs discussed what they see as massive financial harm stemming from IA’s CDL program, which they estimated to amount to “millions of dollars in licensing revenues.” Plaintiffs also emphasized that, were CDL “given the green light,” or upheld as a fair use, the plaintiffs would suffer even greater losses.
And this:
CDL is a longstanding and established practice, which has seen adoption and growth in libraries across the country while the ebook licensing market has continued to thrive.
So it seems easy for me to conclude, having checked Wikipedia’s sources, that the plaintiffs are challenging the Open Library CDL system itself, as a threat to their profits, even though IA was playing by the same rules as every other library system, and that IA losing this fight will be a major blow to libraries across the country:
The judge also questioned whether CDL actually could represent such a loss: the publishers’ argument rests on the premise that libraries loan out CDL scans in lieu of paying to license ebooks, and were CDL not permitted under the law, IA and other libraries would instead choose to pay licensing fees to lend out ebooks. The judge pointed out that the result might in fact be that libraries would choose not to lend digital copies of works out at all, or would instead lend out physical books, undercutting the lost licensing revenue argument.
Tl;Dr: Everything I said was correct, and the publishers want to establish precedent that definites physical books and ebooks and separately licensed so that libraries lend out fewer books, and/or have to pay more to loan out the same number of books that they currently do. They just chose IA as the first target hoping that smaller libraries will be forced into compliance should they win.
Also, someone who knows how to effectively edit Wikipedia articles needs to overhaul that page, because it seems intentionally written to make IA look like they did something much worse than they actually did.
The emergency library followed the same legal framework that ebook lending follows at local libraries.
A library owns x many copies of a book, and they remove some percentage of them from circulation so that they can leverage them to lend digital copies (usually via Libby).
All IA did was coordinate with libraries that were closed due to COVID to allocate a portion of their uncirculated books for IA’s lending system. It was never uncapped, and even used DRM to protect against piracy like Libby does.
Every book that was lended had a physical copy deliberately uncirculated for the purpose of allowing redistribution. It was entirely legitimate, and I commend them for doing it.
Publishers are already trying to fight against libraries that they feel threaten their profitability. This attack against IA is just a test case for going after local libraries, and Libby next. I want IA to fight this and win, because we’re fucked on multiple levels of they lose.
Don’t blame IA for fulfilling their mission to make knowledge free. Blame capitalists for attacking libraries in an attempt to make knowledge less free.
No shit the VPN requires an open port, I never said otherwise, but if your router is the one running the server, you aren’t forwarding the port. The router itself is listening on its WAN interface.
The VPN prevents you from having to forward any ports, because the router allows you to tunnel in. The only open port will be whatever port the VPN server listens on, and it isn’t a forwarded port.
Source: I literally work at a VPN company.
Your misogyny has been noted.
But the lady being referred to here is Maria Dolores Anasztasia Matienzo of Seattle, WA, who is being falsely accused of running Anna’s Archive because her online handle is “anarchivist”. She is, in fact, a woman.
And I see no evidence to conclude that a man runs Anna’s Archive, but yours seems to be that women can’t do tech. You can fuck right off with that bullshit.
If video streaming worked the way music streaming does, that would be a major blow to piracy for sure.
If I had to have Spotify, Deezer, Tidal, and Apple Music in order to listen to everything I want to listen to, I would subscribe to none of them and pirate all my music. Fortunately, most of these services have the same core catalog, the major difference between them is UX and extra features. You just choose the one you like and you’re set.
No such luck with video streaming services which have nearly no overlap.
There has never been a better time to use free open source software. Software piracy is actually less convenient today. Game piracy is really only dead for big multiplayer games, which makes sense since they rely on online services.
Pirate streaming sites were a stupid thing to begin with. I’m happy to see them and the malware they push die. Torrents and P2P will always be king.
Porn piracy is absolutely huge. I think you’re just doing a bad job downloading it.
A post piracy world can only be one thing: crushing authoritarianism. That’s the only way piracy dies.
Oh man, uh, here’s a primer: https://mkomu.kapsi.fi/hipl/index.php?index=how
I am most familar with HIP, but there are ways to isolate hosts so that they can only talk to what you want them to talk to in a distinctly different way than a firewall. You could have three hosts (A, B, & C) on the same subnet where A can talk to B & C, but B & C cannot talk to each other. Likewise, A and C could have access to an Internet gateway, while B does not.
So far HIP is the only protocol I have seen for microsegmentation that actually works in an intuitive way, but I suspect Wireguard could be used to the same effect with some creative engineering.
This one of those questions I am overwhelmingly eqipped to answer, but only with the weird proprietary knowledge about software defined networking and microsegmentation that my job has endowed me with…
So I’ll resist the urge to give you that overcomplicated answer and just say get a firewall like others have suggested.
Despite all the naysayers in the comments, this is the correct answer. No ad-riddled websites, no weird guis. just “yt-dlp < url of whatever you want to rip >” in bash.
Lots of people responding to this need to acquaint themselves with the raw power of yt-dlp. It isn’t just for YouTube. You can rip Deezer and other streaming audio services. You can rip pretty much any video site. It even takes RSS and M3U8 links and will rip live streams.
Okay, but yt-dlp can rip Deezer…
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/blob/master/yt_dlp/extractor/deezer.py
Not quite. Edge and Chrome are both Chromium-based browsers. There shouldn’t be any of the Googled parts of Chrome in Edge, just as there aren’t any Googled parts of Chrome in stock Chromium.
Of course, you are now giving your data to Microsoft instead of Google, which isn’t really a win or a lose. If you’re not paying for the software, you’re either using FOSS, or the software is paid for by selling access to you and your computer.
People stick to what they are used to, and don’t notice the enshittification. Windows users will happily tell you that Windows “just works”, and that Linux is “too hard”, because that’s what they heard for years and never bothered trying for themselves.
Now, Linux overwhelmingly “just works”, and using Windows is a constant fight with the OS. Instead of the problem Linux used to have where everything assumed you understood Unix already and new how to make good user decisions, Windows assumes you’re a brainless moron and makes decisions for you without bothering to ask you or even tell you.
Even the fact that you have to install Linux scares people, because people are used to Windows coming on their computer, and in many cases don’t even realize that Windows and the computer they are running it on are totally different things.
Full Explanation:
Spotify introduced Audiobooks to their platform in November 2023:
- Unlimited listening to public domain classics.
- 15 free hours per month of premium audiobooks.
- 10 hour top ups available.
- Can purchase premium audiobooks for unlimited listening.
OP purchased book 1 and can listen to it all they want. They did not purchase book 2 or 3, and also listened to other audiobooks, putting them over the 15 hour limit.
Key Facts:
- Spotify Audiobooks are a new feature with no additional subscription cost.
- OP used all of their free credits for the month.
- OP was never prevented from listening to a book they purchased.
That said, stop paying for audiobooks like a chump and get a library card.
They know what torrents people download by IP.
anyone can figure that out: https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/
Associating IPs with social media accounts is a step towards identifying people so they can threaten them and force them into settlements.
It’s a numbers game for the lawyers. They want as much data as they can get to identify the largest number of people so they can demand an out-of-court settlement.
The “DMing pictures” part is just an example of how they could gather that kind of data from a social network like Lemmy that can’t be so easily subpoenaed, and allows image hotlinking. I don’t have any evidence that they are doing this (yet), I just know that it would work.
Any of filter or image processing technique that fools machine vision.
Example: https://sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu/fawkes/
At a high level, Fawkes “poisons” models that try to learn what you look like, by putting hidden changes into your photos, and using themn as Trojan horses to deliver that poison to any facial recognition models of you.
This could be done with any kind of image or detail, not just faces.
the admin will be liable for it.
…
These bad actors can then share these links around and you would never know! They can report it to the FBI and if you haven’t taken it down (because you did not know) for a certain period, say goodbye to your instance and see you in court.
In most jurisdictions this is not now it would work. Even a less tech savvy investigator would figure out that it was an online community not obviously affiliated with CSAM, and focus on alerting you and getting the content removed.
There’s this misunderstanding that CSAM is some sort of instant go-to-prison situation, but it really does depend on context. It’s generally not so easy to just plant illegal files and tip off the FBI, because the FBI is strategic enough not to be weaponized like that. Keep an eye on your abuse and admin email inboxes, and take action as soon as you see something, and nobody is going to shut you down or drag you to court.
I really don’t understand why people get so confrontational about this kind of thing. It’s a fucking web browser. I have a strong opinion about how they should be developed, but it has never been important to me to actually care what other people choose to use, especially not to the degree of lashing out at end users.
Educating people on their choices is good, but nobody should be getting this worked up over user choice.
We literally have a global rise in violent fascism and multiple ongoing genocides, and TikTok is the worst thing you can think of?