602m monthly active users as of Q4 2023. That's in their investor deck and similar figures in their SEC reports. Around 250m premium subscribers, the rest on the free tier, accessing Spotify at least once per month.
"I expected this, and it can't be helped." messaging implies to readers that those who would try to stop it are the ostracized out-group.
Among all the possible reactions to news of corruption (of any sort) I've come to the opinion that humorous-resignation normalizes corruption and is, therefore, just as corrupt.
In fact, if I were a bad guy, I'd hire people to leave comments of "The system is broken", "This is normal", "Everyone does it", "There's no way to stop it", and rebuff anyone that proposes solutions. "[Your solution] won't be enough because..."
I generally agree with you but not on that point. I don't blame people for checking out. Fighting the wrongness of the world is just extremely tiresome. At some point, people change themselves instead. They stop trying to fruitlessly change things and move on with their lives, often with the goal to make a ton of money so they can isolate themselves from the rotten society.
Sometimes the only healthy way to react to something is to laugh at the absurdity of it as if you were a sociopathic Joker. It's a coping mechanism for dealing with an imperfect unfixable reality.
Putting effort* into normalizing disenfranchisement is propaganda for the bad guys.
That's my personal revelation.
But to your point, perhaps "just as corrupt" should have been "are, surprisingly, complicit in that corruption".
* "Effort" in this case being "going to the effort of posting". Be checked out? Sure. Being checked out is not my argument. Instead, being engaged-but-jaded and thus broadcasting "corruption is normal" (and thus penalizing corruption is "weird") is /itself/ corrupting.
I like this articulation. I might modify it slightly because you have, in turn, implied that posters are gaslighting the reader. When, in fact, they are merely exposing a defense mechanism. They say that every pessimist is a dissappointed optimist, and something similar has happened here. It is pitiful cowardice, and an unwitting collaboration with the corrupt, rather than an intentional one.
In the end, they need a scolding that will perhaps shame them into remembering they have a backbone. But I suggest that imprecision with the scold will reduce the efficacy of this bitter medicine, and the poster will focus on the minor inaccuracy of your analysis compare it with their own pure intent, dismissing the scold as bad faith. If instead you note that it is cowardice, and add a spoonful of pity to the scold, and remove the minor inaccuracy, it may have a greater effect.
I suspect you and @matheusmoreira are making the same point. It's not a thought I've articulated before... Perhaps, as I've said in the sibling-post, saying they're "complicit in the corruption" is better...
Everyone knows there’s a lot of corruption out there. It’s overwhelmingly tempting to adopt an attitude of cynicism and essentially shut down when we hear about it. This is a dangerous and unproductive response, even though it’s a natural one [1].
Now you might respond that there’s so much corruption in the world and you, as an individual, can’t do much to stop it all. That’s probably true! However, the power and the great benefit of living in a free, democratic society (I’m assuming you live in a western or otherwise free country, otherwise you may have bigger concerns than review payola on Rotten Tomatoes) is that individuals are free to act and to hold people accountable when they abuse their power. Maybe this issue isn’t that important to you and that’s fine, but maybe some other issue actually is really important to you.
What I’m getting at with this long-winded post is simple: try directing your efforts toward one thing you care about and see if you can make a difference, even in one small way. It can go a long way to help you feel more effective and engaged in society!
How on EARTH you go from 'sardonic comment about a pointless movie review site' to "gosh, you really should try and make a difference to something in your life!" is as patronising a take as I'll ever hear.
also this:
"(I’m assuming you live in a western or otherwise free country, otherwise you may have bigger concerns than review payola on Rotten Tomatoes)"
... is simply hilarious, implying that 'western or otherwise free' countries don't have anything more important than messed up film reviews for me to want to change.
Sorry to piggyback on this. I applied for a Director role at DDG about a month ago. Had the autoreply which said DDG would follow up whether it was a yes, let's talk! or a nope, sorry. But nothing at all which was a bit disappointing. The role has been taken down for a few weeks now. I wasn't looking for a new position at all but the description strongly appealed and it was DDG, a company I'd admired for years (and fully remote!).
The IA are trying to drum up support by stating that the publishers want to destroy libraries, which obviously makes them sound really awful. But publishers just want the IA to stop offering their copyrighted works for free to anyone at all times without paying any kind of license fee, which is not how a library works.
It is how a library works if the books are printed on paper. Or parchment or papyrus, I guess.
But if the books are digital, suddenly it becomes magically illegal to do anything without consent of the publisher because it now violates copyright to give your copy to somebody else. And the publisher is arguing that it's morally reprehensible for someone to attempt to build a digital equivalent to lending for physical books.
A library is able to lend out physical books because it bought the books. The publisher got paid when the book was purchased. Plus only one person can borrow a given physical library book at a time.
As noted by several other people here, the IA's model of e-lending only allows one person to borrow the ebook at a time, and that is the model that the lawsuit is trying to shut down. (There was a period of 12 weeks where the lending was unlimited, but that period ended 2½ years ago, and this lawsuit isn't over that period but the program as a whole.) IA also bought the books from the publishers. So the only real difference is that IA digitized the book itself and lent out the digital copy.
The fact that a library can lend out a physical book, but not a scanned copy of a book, with all else being equal (having paid for the books, one person borrowing a copy per paid for book) is a blatant power grab by publishers, who have never liked libraries but couldn't really do anything about them before.
It isn't how a library works in basically every country in the world for books printed on paper except the US. Almost every other state pays authors a royalty when their books are loaned out by a library.
Sort of. The publishers have always hated the concept. They simply never chose to file any lawsuit until the National Emergency Library came about. The trouble with lawsuits is they might be ruled the other way, providing explicit precedent that something is allowed (such as in 2013 when the Supreme Court ruled that importing and selling international editions of textbooks is legal). Sometimes the threat of litigation has a stronger chilling effect than actual litigation. But not here—IA saw an opportunity to push the boundaries, and took it. And the publishers probably think uncontrolled digital lending is an easier battle to win than controlled digital lending.
The plaintiffs argued against Controlled Digital Lending specifically today. Publishers are indeed trying to win the harder battle in an effort to shut down not just IA's digital lending, but all libraries'.
No, that was probably what pushed them over the edge, but the lawsuit also claims that transforming a physical work to a new medium without consent is illegal.
(For example, libraries are not allowed to convert their VHS collection to DVD and lend them out)
It may also end up with the judge explicitly allowing CDL and slapping them on the wrist for uncontrolled lending. That would be like winning the lottery but it's not impossible.
They don't want to 'squash lending'. They are delighted with public libraries who license books and lend out a discrete number of copies at any one time for a limited period of time. They don't like the Internet Archive version which is 'we shall upload any book we find and allow anyone to download it and keep it, forever'.
The publishers would like the IA to stop doing that. If the IA wants to keep offering things which are out of copyright or which the copyright owners aren't going to challenge, great. Go for it. This isn't an assault on the concept of a library which is what the IA is trying to pretend. It's a challenge on the IA's pretense that they are a library and not a stock of pirated books, amongst other items.
Good lord...not even sure where to start with this:
1) The ebooks available through IA's Open Library are offered under a controlled lending scheme similar to a commercial service like OneDrive and Amazon. Users are limited to 10 books at a time, and can borrow the items for up to 14 days. After that period, the ebooks -- which use Adobe's DRM tech -- are disabled.
2) The number of "copies" available for lending are restricted to the actual number of physical copies that IA has in storage, permanently out of circulation.
3) Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan and the rest of the publishing industry is fairly hell-bent on "squashing lending" that doesn't happen through their exclusive and extremely lucrative ebook channels. The steep increases in pricing along with tightening restrictions on access have public library institutions such as the ALA concerned about the very existence of book lending in the future.
4) In their PR blitz, the publishers talk a lot about the "National Emergency Library," which did allow for unlimited lending during a 12-week period at the beginning of the pandemic; but the suit is not confined to this short-lived program.
The National Emergency Library program essentially tarnishes any reputation the IA had for respecting copyright, is the problem. Similarly to a criminal admitting to lying on the stand, the Internet Archive made it clear it can and will suspend respecting copyright when it feels whatever situation warrants doing so. They absolutely wrecked their credibility, and may take the entire concept of CDL down with it.
> They absolutely wrecked their credibility, and may take the entire concept of CDL down with it.
Ah yes, the "it's your own fault we want to end libraries" approach. If they had their way, the only "fair use" left will be through time-restricted DRM after paying a licensing fee.
Internet Archive used Adobe DRM to specifically enforce the exact same rental period that a physical book would have. So while you might be right legally, you aren't correct morally.
The "assault on the concept of a library" thing isn't from this specific lawsuit, but just general publisher behavior. The publishers want libraries to become a shittier Netflix for books - i.e. the last rung on a very tall windowing[0] ladder, with them being paid per rental and books being able to be pulled from circulation at a whim. This is Literally Nineteen Eighty-Four.
A good parallel for this would be the Epic v. Apple lawsuit. Legally speaking, there was no way in hell a private company was going to get standing for an expansive, Stallmanesque antitrust lawsuit against the very bedrock of platform capitalism. And morally, Epic is a worse company than Apple. However, practically speaking, their ability to get discovery woke every legislative body up to a lot of industry dirty laundry. The EU Digital Markets Act would not have passed without Epic v. Apple airing all that out.
If IA is able to get discovery, they could do something similar for book publishing. Just put all that dirty laundry out in front of the public and let them make sense of it.
[0] The practice of releasing creative works in stages. Think like how movies go from theaters, to home video, to rental or streaming, to airplanes, in roughly that order.
Gosh you make it sound like a schoolyard flirtation. "Stole a kiss". She was trapped in his car and he grabbed her by the throat. He grabbed another woman by the throat and didn't let go. He raped a woman. There is a pattern of behaviour here that is profoundly disturbing.
Victims are often frightened enough to not come forward. The kind of trial by social media in which you're now engaged is all part of that. Why allege anything when you'll be accused of making it up, being a slut, having your life history raked through by trolls online...
"Hunted by his money" ffs. "Without more data". Have some empathy.
Also note that he is NOT "being sued for sweet money" but criminally charged by a prosecutor. They don't do that unless they have strong evidence and there's no compensation to victims in a criminal trial.
> The kind of trial by social media in which you're now engaged is all part of that. Why allege anything when you'll be accused of making it up, being a slut, having your life history raked through by trolls online...
The accused can also have their lives raked through and ruined simply for being accused. There is something to gain (e.g. financial and moral support, feeling as though one were on the "right" side of history, etc.) from being a professional victim, and doubly so on social media. Whether that applies here remains to be seen.
> "Hunted by his money" ffs. "Without more data". Have some empathy.
Empathy: The ability to identify with or understand another's situation or feelings
Waiting for data and considering the potential motivations involved are empathetic actions. It may be simplistic to make such claims, but there is no lack of empathy to consider that these situations can occur and have occurred to other people and that they might be applicable here. At the end of the day, no one here was present when the alleged events occurred. We're all relying on news reports and hearsay.
> Also note that he is NOT "being sued for sweet money" but criminally charged by a prosecutor. They don't do that unless they have strong evidence and there's no compensation to victims in a criminal trial.
Any evidence obtained in a criminal trial can be used in a civil trial with a lower burden of proof, even if one is acquitted in the former. Additionally, prosecutors have issued charges on exaggerated, or even fraudulent evidence before. The Innocence Project is a testament the consequences of zealousness and lack of impartiality that occurs in courts across the country.
In what is likely a to be a he said/she said scenario, one should wait to examine how damning the evidence and testimony actually is so as not to come to a premature conclusion.
Was she? She said he grabbed her by the throat. What’s that mean? He actually did? Did it leave a mark? I mean, if it was strong enough to choke her?
Did his hand brush her throat?
What was her immediate description of what happened to the very first person she told?
These other acts you describe, were they accusations or facts?
You are literally engaging in trial by social media asserting claims as fact when they are accusations.
“They don’t do that unless they have strong evidence” - spoken like someone who has only ever read about the criminal justice system. The news has been filled with stories of unjust actions the entire length of Covid.
You don’t understand how things work. If you can get a criminal charge to stick, then you can threaten to settle out of court for money (with the woman) to avoid her bringing a civil trial.
Is she lying? I have no idea, but your argument is as bad as “that black man wouldn’t be charged by the police for raping that white woman if he didn’t do it. The white woman wouldn’t lie, it must be so scary for her to come forward”. Literally this except replace black with “rich”, the new boogie-man.
Dude should have an internal recorder in his car, like an Uber driver. It would either save him from false accusations or himself.
The map misses a road which heads out from Cambridge to Colchester that shouldn't be difficult to spot given that it's called the 'Roman Road'. Even the Romans should be able to spot that.
It only includes roads and locations mentioned in two sources: the Peutinger map ("tabula Peutingeriana" [0]) and the Itinerarium Antonini [1]. Clearly you've found where those sources lacked precision.
The routefinding also seems to be seriously imperfect. This journey from London to Tripoli takes the land route around the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean coast: https://omnesviae.org/#!iter_OVPlace427_TPPlace292
I may or may not have spent two minutes deleting folders... They should really make folders selectable for easy deletion.
(I'm not affiliated with the project, I moderate other communities, this is weirdly common of trolls online). Of course I say that and it got spammed to death. I think someone has a script going at this point.
They'll just change the folder names to something else eventually. Maybe they should just disable creating folders for the demo.
Also, you're really expecting me to write bash this early in the morning? I have not written bash for a few years now. I guess I could of just had postman generate part of the code for me and done it in an even shorter span of time, but I assumed they were not automating the vandalism.
Well, the fight between the people trying to create these and those trying to delete it seems to have brought down the demo site. Mission accomplished?
https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q4...