4 ms·

Setting precedent with out-of-copyright and They already did allow out-of-copyright works to be downloaded as many times as anyone wants, without DRM. They're

by kick 6y ago

Setting precedent with out-of-copyright and They already did allow out-of-copyright works to be downloaded as many times as anyone wants, without DRM. They're out of copyright. That's unambiguously legal and always has been. There, they've done what you wanted them to, they "segregated the risk from the main organization" (you'd have to have a pretty warped worldview to imagine it makes a difference, but nothing in your comment would have actually done that). Allowing a third party to run the National Emergency Library would have been another. I've read this line over and over again. Is this what you meant by it? "The organization that has all of the books and is registered as a library shouldn't have run the library that's legally grounded in them being legally-recognized as a library and having all of the books that they have." If so, I completely disagree with you. This makes way more sense than you're giving credit for. IA isn't run by a five year old.

wtracy 6y ago
The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending, but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets. Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight.
- kick 6y ago
  The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets This would be incredibly stupid and would require a complete restructuring of how the IA works (despite the belief of seemingly many people in this thread, the IA is significantly more than the Wayback Machine). Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. Which would still be bad and morally wrong, and is more likely to happen when it's its own, non-library entity. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight. No, it couldn't. Not a bit more than it could be five months ago.
  - wtracy 6y ago
    > Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. That's an important nuance that I and others missed. > No, it couldn't. Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings.
    - kick 6y ago
      Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings. The data is backed up in many ways (including to some extent in a fully-distributed fashion, though I'm not in the know enough to give you an idea of how vast it is: https://dweb.archive.org/ https://dweb.archive.org/ ), and a non-profit can't be forced into bankruptcy in the way you're implying (which is another reason it's so important the IA is non-profit), so the physical assets are safe: https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entity-may-not-be-forced-into-bankruptcy-through-substantive https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entit...
      - tripletao 6y ago
        I'm confused. Are you saying that the IA should run the Wayback Machine and library under one entity, or two different entities? In your reply to JumpCrisscross, you seem to argue for one, and that two would have no benefit; but your link contradicts that. Your link is about substantive consolidation, a process where the bankruptcy court combines multiple related legal entities into one. This can benefit the creditors of Entity A, since it may frustrate the debtor's attempt to shield assets by placing them in a related Entity B. Your link correctly notes that a nonprofit can't be forced into bankruptcy, and thus can't be forced into substantive consolidation. So if the IA used the two-entity strategy, then your link implies it would be quite effective--worst case, the publishers take all the assets of the library entity, and they have no way to touch the Wayback entity. If both the Wayback Machine and the library are under the same entity, then that single entity still can't be forced into bankruptcy, because it's a nonprofit. But the creditor (i.e., the publishers with their hypothetical judgment) can still just collect against the single nonprofit entity, bankruptcy or no bankruptcy. If the judgment is for more than the entity's assets then the creditor gets everything. The point of bankruptcy is to consolidate multiple creditors' claims into a single case, to be resolved more fairly, while destroying less value, etc. It seems like you might be thinking that no bankruptcy means no ability for the creditors to collect? But that's exactly backwards--bankruptcy is primarily a set of protections for the debtor (like the "automatic stay", which stops creditors from trying to collect outside the bankruptcy), with a few smaller benefits for the creditor (like that substantive consolidation) thrown in. ETA: And I see that the IA describes itself as "recognized as a library by the government", but I'm not aware of any specific legal benefit from that. Regardless, if that's somehow important then they could leave the books in the library entity and split out the Wayback, instead of splitting out the library.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Wouldn't that be treated by the courts as an attempt to shield IA's assets?

by kick 6y ago

wtracy 6y ago

The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending, but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets. Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight.

kick 6y ago
The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets This would be incredibly stupid and would require a complete restructuring of how the IA works (despite the belief of seemingly many people in this thread, the IA is significantly more than the Wayback Machine). Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. Which would still be bad and morally wrong, and is more likely to happen when it's its own, non-library entity. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight. No, it couldn't. Not a bit more than it could be five months ago.
- wtracy 6y ago
  > Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. That's an important nuance that I and others missed. > No, it couldn't. Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings.
  - kick 6y ago
    Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings. The data is backed up in many ways (including to some extent in a fully-distributed fashion, though I'm not in the know enough to give you an idea of how vast it is: https://dweb.archive.org/ https://dweb.archive.org/ ), and a non-profit can't be forced into bankruptcy in the way you're implying (which is another reason it's so important the IA is non-profit), so the physical assets are safe: https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entity-may-not-be-forced-into-bankruptcy-through-substantive https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entit...
    - tripletao 6y ago
      I'm confused. Are you saying that the IA should run the Wayback Machine and library under one entity, or two different entities? In your reply to JumpCrisscross, you seem to argue for one, and that two would have no benefit; but your link contradicts that. Your link is about substantive consolidation, a process where the bankruptcy court combines multiple related legal entities into one. This can benefit the creditors of Entity A, since it may frustrate the debtor's attempt to shield assets by placing them in a related Entity B. Your link correctly notes that a nonprofit can't be forced into bankruptcy, and thus can't be forced into substantive consolidation. So if the IA used the two-entity strategy, then your link implies it would be quite effective--worst case, the publishers take all the assets of the library entity, and they have no way to touch the Wayback entity. If both the Wayback Machine and the library are under the same entity, then that single entity still can't be forced into bankruptcy, because it's a nonprofit. But the creditor (i.e., the publishers with their hypothetical judgment) can still just collect against the single nonprofit entity, bankruptcy or no bankruptcy. If the judgment is for more than the entity's assets then the creditor gets everything. The point of bankruptcy is to consolidate multiple creditors' claims into a single case, to be resolved more fairly, while destroying less value, etc. It seems like you might be thinking that no bankruptcy means no ability for the creditors to collect? But that's exactly backwards--bankruptcy is primarily a set of protections for the debtor (like the "automatic stay", which stops creditors from trying to collect outside the bankruptcy), with a few smaller benefits for the creditor (like that substantive consolidation) thrown in. ETA: And I see that the IA describes itself as "recognized as a library by the government", but I'm not aware of any specific legal benefit from that. Regardless, if that's somehow important then they could leave the books in the library entity and split out the Wayback, instead of splitting out the library.
mcguire 6y ago
Wouldn't that be treated by the courts as an attempt to shield IA's assets?