you have thousands of actual books? 😅

[removed]

If anyone wants a play by play or alerts of the court hearing

Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive (1:20-cv-04160)

District Court, S.D. New York

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-book-group-inc-v-internet-archive/

Bezos could cut his pay by the amount it would take to keep those people on and he wouldn't even notice...

Hell, he could cover 10x that and probably wouldn't notice...

edit: in fact, according to some back-of-the-envelope math and quick googling, I'm fairly certain that Jeff Bezos makes more money in a year than all of his employees combined... And if he doesn't, it's damned close.

Agreed with pretty much everything here. though with linux i think it mostly needs something that pushes and makes one single derivative the leading Linux OS that the vast majority uses so developers and AAA can actually be incentiviced to take "that one" and go from there instead of facing the choice and requests of the plentiful derivatives with no true overarching linux as is.

I can see the headline now, Cat burnings up 55% this year.

The rats are gonna re-program the bots to make deliveries to the hoard.

Because there was sudden demand during pandemic? Why are you asking about obvious reason?

Are you trolling?

Right, people are fearmongering, ingoring numbers, for example Microsoft which laid off 10k people while recruiting 40k positions during pandemic.

[removed]

Yeah, when I clean my kitchen I'm not "reducing" the amount of waste.

I'm just decreasing the lifetime of the junk in my kitchen.

The consequence that reducing junk lifetime reduces the amount of junk is just incidental and can be ignored.

[removed]

In my experience, the people who downloaded my book for free were way less likely to read it or reach out to me that they read it than those who paid for it. This just goes to my decades-long theory that "piracy" has barely any actual effect on LIKELY purchases because people who download things for free were unlikely to buy them anyway... or even use them.

[removed]

[removed]

Pretty sure this case doesn't affect the website archive/wayback machine.
It seems to be related to their book library.

Maybe selling old books, electronicly converted, at full price isn't helping?

> just because they own a physical copy of my book that gives them the right to distribute digital copies, even if they only do so "one at a time".

They aren't distributing digital copies, they are loaning the copy that they have out. At the end of the loan, the person can no longer use the copy.

The big issue that you (and the publishers) are missing here is that you think that this is losing you income. There is no guarantee that the people that are loaning books will be buying a copy instead. The publishers haven't given any proof that they even lost a cent in revenue.

I buy a lot of digital books but I also use IA from time to time to loan out an obscure book that I have no interest in purchasing. I will never buy those books. This case is making me rethink my decision to buy book digitally. I am far less likely to buy any digital copies now and will try and visit my local library instead to read physical books or buy books from traditional book sellers and not places like Amazon.

I am doing this for 2 reasons:

1. The greed of the publishers (and some authors)
2. The fact that the contents of my digital copy, that I have purchased, can change any time in the future when the publisher decides to "update" the book.

The tech industry late has been so frustrating because they’re finally coming back down to earth and business reality now that company valuations have dropped. When valuations are sky high then employees can be richly compensated.

I agree that it could come back to bite them which is why I said that I didn't think it was the smartest move. I didn't see the publishers bringing it up in the oral arguments today so hopefully it won't hurt them.

How is lending a physical copy different from lending a digital copy?

Just because the industry decided to consider digital both digital and physical at the same time does not mean it makes sense. Just because they lobbied to limit the scope of digital copies to be way more narrow that what can be imposed on physical copies?

Some sell digital copies at the same price as a physical copy. But unlike the physical you only rent it, not own it, since it's only a perpetual license at best. In case of some DRM only until they decide to pull the plug on whatever online DRM service they were using. Then you are stuck with a bunch of one's and zeros you paid full price for, but can never legally access.

Just like they consider every pirated copy of a digital IP a theft of a full priced physical item while it is just a license violation. You can't have it both ways.

Think about it this way: a library is offering a service to make books available at a fee as a social service. They've been doing the same for decades with physical copies. Just because of the greed of publisher, this should not be allowed anymore for digital copies just because they decided so cause they could make more money?

Wow, thanks for the explanation! Truly appreciate it!

Does DeDRM and the kindle for PC trick no longer work?

Some of these things are just fucking not found anywhere else, there's random shit that will be forever *lost* to time for the sake of some publisher's greed.

Fuck them. the IA is the purest form of the "Old Internet" left online these days.