Was it unreadable? Sometime ago everybody believed that after the IPv4 exhaustion everybody will quickly switch to IPv6. It was quite reasonable to sell them while they were still worth something if they believed that they will be worthless is several years.
Sadly, there was no big switch to IPv6 and double NAT is the thing now.
It would give reputable battery producers with all kind of certificates a thing and not buying dubious compatible batteries from Amazon/EBay/Ali/whatever a thing.
It would also make it easier for people to learn how to replace batteries.
Vehicle speed can be easily measured and is a fact and an offense. Here there were conflicting informations about the other person's age and the offendents could have believed that the other person is 20+.
Let's put that differently. If your speed meeter is broken and you believe that you are not speeding, but in fact are still speeding, then the situation is clear. Here the other person was really 20+, so his judgment was actually correct.
Currently there is no need for this as Telegram messages still work and Telegram channel network NEXTA (https://t.me/nexta_tv, from Belarusian word Нехта (someone), pronounced [ˈnʲexta](nyekhta), see https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сцяпан_Аляксандравіч_Пуціла ) became the main tool for spreading news and coordination.
I think that this reasoning is quite naive. The most basic counterexample I can give is a person who downloaded the content, but wasn't able to afford it. If that content was not accessible on IA, that person wouldn't be able to access is. The publisher would still not earn anything.
I think it is your reasoning that is naive. Of course there are people using IA to access a book that, were it not free, would not buy the book. These people are neither plus nor minus in terms of revenue. But for your point to hold, everyone who downloaded the content would have to fall into this category. Almost certainly a large number of users would be those who might potentially buy the book but will simply download it if its free. These people would be lost revenue.
You can argue about the size of this group, but the counter argument would be that there is a valid fear that if it is normalized and allowed to continue, this group will grow larger and larger over time. You can argue by trying to compare this to libraries, but libraries still buy their copies of the book, and checking a book out from a library comes with restrictions that don't exist here. There really isn't a way to spin this where it doesn't result in some amount of lost royalties for the author.
We can go back and forth with thinking each others' reasoning is naive, but reasoning isn't how we discover the truth. Frankly, to both sides of this argument, real-world evidence or GTFO.
There's plenty of totally reasonable hypotheses for why giving away content can be profitable OR unprofitable, and plenty of real-life examples of both as well. The fact is, with regards to this situation, we don't know, and this conversation shouldn't center around a problem that some people have only hypothesized exists.
How many people who read a certain book on IA would actually be able to buy it during the crisis? I think that that number is really low, so the loss is really low as well, but sometimes authors prefer not to sell or give away even when there is no perspective or benefit. Some time ago, I needed an old book that wasn't popular, but nobody wanted to sell a new copy of it at even a remotely decent price...
It's like a car dealer said "you fool came to buy a car in that hard time. I see that you really need it, so I will charge 10x the price"
"But look! You have an entire parking lot of cars that nobody wants to buy. Maybe you could give me a discount?"
"You are right. I will charge 40x the price!"
While there are some similarities, the key difference is that Apple doesn't impose a "reputation requirement." Signed apps and installers work the same no matter how many other users have run them.
Sadly, there was no big switch to IPv6 and double NAT is the thing now.