25 ms·

Books they wouldnt need to destroy if they were simply permitted to torrent. Daily reminder that piracy is the only enduring archive mechanism.

• vermilingua 22d ago
  No, these are books that aren't online, which means not only are they not contributing to the commons, they are irrevocably salting the earth (irrevocably because let's be honest, anything going into their archives isn't coming out without legal or actual violence) Also, permitted or no, they are definitely torrenting. I would be deeply surprised if they hadn't already leeched every torrent on public trackers. The only reason they (probably) haven't depleted all the private trackers too is that they would be required to actually contribute back, which as above is never going to happen.
  • protocolture 22d ago
    >irrevocably because let's be honest, anything going into their archives isn't coming They were torrenting, they were sent to court and settled for big $$$$. The only other method available to them now is scanning, and scanning at scale requires the books destruction. I agree that they should definitely be required to see the new scans but that would just be more $$$$ they get charged if caught.
  • strken 22d ago
    I'm surprised they don't just run their own Project Gutenberg-style downloads for out of copyright digitised works. Seems like it'd be good PR.
    • valleyer 21d ago
      Seems like it would be shut down by an injunction almost immediately.
      • throwawayk7h 21d ago
        project gutenberg is still up.
      • strken 18d ago
        Not for out of copyright work, right?
    • throwawayk7h 21d ago
      it would let competitors train on the data.