Against the terms of agreements they made? Yes.

To be fair, this is what I meant when I said wrong. Enough people have taken umbrage with my wording that I think I should update it, though. Thank you for your reply.

My understanding is that the IA had implemented a digital library, where they had (whether paid or not) some number of licenses for a selection of books. This implementation had DRM of some variety that meant you could only read the book while it was checked out. In theory, this means if the IA has 10 licenses of a book, only 10 people have a usable copy they borrowed from the IA at a time.

And then the IA disabled the DRM system, somehow, and started limitlessly lending the books they had copies of to anyone that asked.

I definitely don't like the obnoxious copyright system in the USA, but what the IA did seems obviously ~~wrong~~ against the agreement they entered into. Like if your local library got a copy of Book X and then when someone wanted to borrow it they just copied it right there and let you keep the copy.

ETA: updated my wording. I don't believe what the IA did was morally wrong, per se, but rather against the agreement I presume they entered into with the owners of the books they lent.

I feel like in that case one would be loudly fighting to get the law changed, rather than insisting it's actually fine. Maybe that's just semantics.

I do not understand what point you're making. Can you elaborate?

I speak English, I studied Latin but have not kept up, and I know a tiny bit of Japanese and French.

Oh shit, that's amazing! That could be a real learning opportunity for folks interested in starting game dev like me!

I find that Devon speaks a bit too fast for my taste, but he's always given great breakdowns of stuff I wouldn't otherwise understand. Love that guy.

I have had a comment of mine removed from .ml for (correctly) indicating that hexbear is not a trustworthy instance.

I switched to Mint for my new PC a few months ago. There are a handful of games that don't work on it, but they're few and far between.

I'm in the same boat. There are a lot of parts of the Internet that should be free, but YouTube is not one of them. Video hosting is one of the most resource intensive services around, and if we as consumers aren't paying for it they'll find a worse way to fund it.

A hit-piece commissioned by the Joker to distract you from his upcoming bank heist!!!!!

Is this something your average person could do?