It was over loaning them 1:1, the pandemic actions were barely mentioned as part of the lawsuit and the result is that 1:1 loaning was ruled illegal. The only harm the pandemic actions did was to public opinion.

The book lawsuit was over current titles (not really archival and preservation), and the record lawsuit wasn't really about the rare 78s, it was about the modern Jimi Hendrix and Paul McCartney records that somehow slipped in. And their refusal to follow the modern law that they themselves celebrated that made what they're trying to do (including downloads) explicitly legal. But that law prohibited fundraising, and they couldn't resist tweeting out links to Frank Sinatra records with a big banner on top asking for money.

In both lawsuits the discovery revealed tech debt and sloppy process at the Archive that made it impossible for them to argue on behalf of the future we all want.

The first time I traveled outside the western part of the world, I was (naively or not) surprised by the sheer amount of bootleg tapes sold in regular stores. Same with DVD when that time came around.

I don't think phones are the problem. I think it's more social media. Schools find it less effort to ban phones vs how to work with them.

The nanny state is a troubling trend

Firstly, there's no account for correlation between the features identified. The article mentions VINs which have several single-vehicle accidents, for example, but someone who has one single-vehicle accident is probably more likely to have another. Switching coverage is another of those potentially-correlated features; if you claim and it bumps your premium, aren't you likely to shop around as a result?

Secondly, there's no attempt to account for the law of large numbers. It's incredibly unlikely that someone has three single vehicle accidents in a year, but because the probability of that is nonzero, we know that with enough vehicles on the road then someone is going to do it.

The article covers itself by acknowledging this, of course, but if you title your blog post "We Found Insurance Fraud in Our Crash Data" then you should actually do that.

Just limiting yourself to only "digital computation" being magical enough to invalidate copyright is an arbitrary restriction. Unless you clarify why you think the computation performed by the lens system doesn't have that property, further discussion seems pointless because it will just collapse to a circular "digital computation is magical enough", which is your implied premise.

The 360 Kinect can only track two skeletons (but differentiate 6).