3 ms·
>The scanning process they use is _intentionally_ destructive, not accidentally destructive. i am aware. i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_
by john_strinlai 3mo ago
>The scanning process they use is _intentionally_ destructive, not accidentally destructive.
i am aware. i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_ be non-destructive.
>They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books.
i didnt say or imply they were
- Terr_ 3mo ago> i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_ be non-destructive. Yes, techniques exist, but they are not "reasonable" here, because for these books the risk/penalties of copyright law require them to be destroyed after the scan anyway. The non-destructive scanning (if you follow the ArsTechnica links) was done for different books with a different legal situation so that they could be preserved.
- Catloafdev 3mo agoThe problem is the 'options to be intentionally non-destructive' come with legal liabilities that don't exist if they destroy the original copy.
- john_strinlai 3mo agosure, i agree with that. all they content the pirated originally also came with legal liabilities. they weighed the risk and made a decision. my comment was not calling them "crazy people" for making that decision. i thought my comment was pretty neutral.
- Catloafdev 3mo agoYour comment was fine, I didn't think you were implying that at all. I was just trying to clarify that they aren't choosing to do that for arbitrary reasons.
- tempestn 3mo agoBut you're implying that they could use non-destructive means and choose not to.
- john_strinlai 3mo agoyeah, i think they could have. they weren't shy about pirating content before, and i think there is a decent legal argument they could have made. non-destructive scanning is also probably more expensive. so they made a business decision based on risk (and i would assume cost). i dont think that makes them "crazy people"