As a default judgement because they don’t know who runs it lol.
Anna runs it
Yeah like duh it’s right there in the name, how hard can it be to find her?
Assuming there is about 500.000 Annas in the US alone (according to Wolfram Alpha), good luck with that! :D
Assuming it’s not an alias lol
😤 as far as I’m concerned every Anna is guilty until proven innocent. After that we can investigate Berta.
Arrest all the Annas, when you have immunity, they let you do it if it is an official act.
Why arrest them and then have to go through such a troublesome legal process that might not even result in a conviction?
Well, maybe all 500000 will “learn their lesson”, like Assange…
wait’ll they find out about libraries.
I hope they don’t find out about libraries. I feel like usa is going to ban libraries soon because of copyright.
No need to invoke copyright. They’ll just do it to own the libs.
True
Freedom of information is a grave threat to the hegemonic narrative.
Good luck finding the owner, and also good luck shutting down their hundreds of torrents and thousands of peers (which will definitely never happen)
But they have ordered the complete destruction of all torrents!!
Which is Canute level of absurdity.
5M to protect against scraping? That sounds… a bit much, no? 34 employees with that one task for 2 years doesn’t sound believable to me. Why is WorldCat worth anything anyway?
They should have been able to put a stop to the scraping very quickly. It’s not that hard to block or rate limit IPs that are causing excessive load.
Defendants, through the Anna’s Archive domains, have made, and continue to make, all 2.2 TB of WorldCat® data available for public download through its torrents,” OCLC wrote in the complaint it filed in an Ohio federal court.
It was 2.2 TB that is nothing…
Just set a torrent size of 10tb and hit go. I’ll move that to permanent storage when it’s done.
Seriously… I’ve downloaded 2TB in a week before.
I get that it’s not about the bandwidth, though; it’s about needing to upgrade their security since they scrapped the site without needing to log in, so obviously their site wasn’t secure. They’re claiming IT costs as damages.
They should have had security in place beforehand if they didn’t want people to scrape their site. If AA hadn’t done it someone else would have. Don’t make it public if you don’t want people to use it.
Also calling “improving it security” damages is kind of misleading. No its not damages, you just actually got some IT security for once
but now they can (try to) make someone else pay for it!
