HugThem

Lots of confusion in this question. Where do I even start ...

First of all, what do you mean by "this"?

You mention Napster and Limewire. These are things. Things cannot be illegal. Actions can be illegal.

A certain action is illegal if there is a paragraph in the applicable jurisdiction that forbids it.

It might be illegal to manufacture, own, fake, destroy or distribute a thing. But a thing on its own cannot be illegal. What would that even mean.

So who did what, which jurisdiction is applicable and which paragraph forbids it?

Because pc laptops can run Linux.

After one hour and 23 comments, you are the first one to notice it.

Shows that even on HN, the vast majority only reads the headline of an article.

    I’m not too willing to take a different
    job given my sweet gig.

This Steve Jobs quote comes to mind:

"A human mind is too precious to be wasted"

I think making the commit summary the "id" of this workflow is actually interesting. It is a step towards doing project management in git itself rather then an external tool.

My point is that you cannot "lend" bits. Nor can you "return" them.

The meaning of "digital" is that the original never moves. Otherwise it would be "physical".

Is this about copyright? Aka "If you copy more then X words, your violate the authors copyright" so that one has to negotiate with the author about copying more then X words?

Or do they force Google and Facebook to publish those snippets and pay for them? Making media kind of state controlled? If so, who decides which news have to be included?

Or what is this about?

Have they been sued over digital lending in general or because they lent out more digital copies then they owned physically?

Either way, I think that there is no legal "digital lending". What makes people buy things is that they can not get them for free easily. Copyright is there to benefit the author. It puts a certain burdon on the consumer: They have to buy a copy. Or - if they want to breach the law - they have to find someone who illegally makes a copy for them.

"Digital lending" would allow the 3rd party to legally make a copy to the consumer. Because bits are not lended. They are copied. That is not how copyright sets the balance between author and consumer.

I would be surprised if the IA wins this.

This is an example of a comment that should be downvoted.

When does it happen that two branches share random commits? I never had that happen in my use cases.

Summary:

He published a 14GB file and one day there were 2700 downloads resulting in ~30 Terrabyte of traffic.

He had the file behind CloudFlare, but since CloudFlare does not cache files larger then 512MB, all the traffic went to his S3 bucket and Amazon billed him $2700 for that.