4 ms·

I have a monthly reoccurring donation in the amount of $10. If you haven’t donated please do. https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/

by vuln 6y ago

FartyMcFarter 6y ago
Some tech companies match employee donations to it as well.
garmaine 6y ago
Why? I stoped my donations when this started, because I could see the writing on the wall. I have better uses for my charitable dollars than paying legal fees and judgement for a lawsuit they are clearly going to lose.
remram 6y ago
I had a recurring donation until they decided to take a step that was obviously going to get them sued. I support IA's mission and products, but won't throw money in legal proceedings they set themselves to lose; I feel like this is better spent on EFF etc who are serious about it. I object to modern intellectual property and publishing practices as much as anyone, but what did they expect would happen when they dropped their entire legal justification?
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  The EFF is taking up the legal defense in this suit, so your donation would be ending up at the same place anyway.
  - remram 6y ago
    I knew that! And I have no problem with it, since EFF are upfront about what the money is for (and are probably better/more rational about the battles they pick)
    - jachee 6y ago
      But... EFF also picked this battle. Honestly, you may be able to split it between them and ultimately do more good than the sum of the halves.
      - remram 6y ago
        So they did! However I can expect that if the odds turn bad, they won't waste money grasping at straws. If IA decides to pull another similar stunt, EFF probably won't defend them there. More importantly, I am not enabling those stunts with my support and my money, at least until this one is resolved. Of course I do hope EFF gets them acquited somehow, but I don't like those odds (and they probably didn't either and charged ahead regardless, which is my problem). I would love to "split the halves" like you said, and would if I had any assurance that the half they get supports things like the WayBack machine. However for all I know, they'll just use it to make the whole Netflix catalogue available for free next month. I guess what I'm trying to say is that their management lost my trust.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > but what did they expect would happen when they dropped their entire legal justification? Specifically what legal justification to you think they dropped that they followed previously?
  - dfabulich 6y ago
    They were doing controlled digital lending (CDL) with a strict owned-to-loaned ratio. Then, during the emergency, they waived all waitlists and limits, allowing an unlimited number of loans for a single owned copy. They no longer could claim that they were still engaged in CDL, so there was no legal justification to make all of those copies.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      I wonder if perhaps they are sitting on data showing that no individual page of any book was ever being viewed by more than one person at a time, and therefore they were still effectively just redistributing the physical book pages they already owned. If so, their legal basis looks much much stronger.
      - recursivecaveat 6y ago
        There's definitely some open questions about how efficiently one should be allowed to 'multiplex' a piece of media between consumers, but I don't think anyone will get away with splitting the logical unit they were given/sold into pieces. Just checking whether a digital book is open at all probably has over a 50X efficiency gain versus physical lending. If you let the lender split it up there's no clear place to stop and the limits are absurd. You could buy a movie, split it into frames and service 1000s of simultaneous viewings with small offsets from each-other.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      Doesn't the article say that's not what they did, instead lending out copies that were sitting at partner libraries that weren't being lended out because they were closed? If that's the case, we're they not still lending out with each digital copy corresponding to a digital copy?
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
This time around, I'm going to wait until it is clear that I'm not just funding the publishers (in case a court awards a judgement that would bankrupt the IA). But once that is clear, definitely going to continue throwing money at IA (or whatever successor may form). They're an absolutely invaluable asset for all of humanity.

I have a monthly reoccurring donation in the amount of $10. If you haven’t donated please do. https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/

by vuln 6y ago

I have a monthly reoccurring donation in the amount of $10. If you haven’t donated please do. https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/

FartyMcFarter 6y ago

Some tech companies match employee donations to it as well.

garmaine 6y ago

Why? I stoped my donations when this started, because I could see the writing on the wall. I have better uses for my charitable dollars than paying legal fees and judgement for a lawsuit they are clearly going to lose.

remram 6y ago

I had a recurring donation until they decided to take a step that was obviously going to get them sued. I support IA's mission and products, but won't throw money in legal proceedings they set themselves to lose; I feel like this is better spent on EFF etc who are serious about it. I object to modern intellectual property and publishing practices as much as anyone, but what did they expect would happen when they dropped their entire legal justification?

Apocryphon 6y ago
The EFF is taking up the legal defense in this suit, so your donation would be ending up at the same place anyway.
- remram 6y ago
  I knew that! And I have no problem with it, since EFF are upfront about what the money is for (and are probably better/more rational about the battles they pick)
  - jachee 6y ago
    But... EFF also picked this battle. Honestly, you may be able to split it between them and ultimately do more good than the sum of the halves.
    - remram 6y ago
      So they did! However I can expect that if the odds turn bad, they won't waste money grasping at straws. If IA decides to pull another similar stunt, EFF probably won't defend them there. More importantly, I am not enabling those stunts with my support and my money, at least until this one is resolved. Of course I do hope EFF gets them acquited somehow, but I don't like those odds (and they probably didn't either and charged ahead regardless, which is my problem). I would love to "split the halves" like you said, and would if I had any assurance that the half they get supports things like the WayBack machine. However for all I know, they'll just use it to make the whole Netflix catalogue available for free next month. I guess what I'm trying to say is that their management lost my trust.
kbenson 6y ago
> but what did they expect would happen when they dropped their entire legal justification? Specifically what legal justification to you think they dropped that they followed previously?
- dfabulich 6y ago
  They were doing controlled digital lending (CDL) with a strict owned-to-loaned ratio. Then, during the emergency, they waived all waitlists and limits, allowing an unlimited number of loans for a single owned copy. They no longer could claim that they were still engaged in CDL, so there was no legal justification to make all of those copies.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    I wonder if perhaps they are sitting on data showing that no individual page of any book was ever being viewed by more than one person at a time, and therefore they were still effectively just redistributing the physical book pages they already owned. If so, their legal basis looks much much stronger.
    - recursivecaveat 6y ago
      There's definitely some open questions about how efficiently one should be allowed to 'multiplex' a piece of media between consumers, but I don't think anyone will get away with splitting the logical unit they were given/sold into pieces. Just checking whether a digital book is open at all probably has over a 50X efficiency gain versus physical lending. If you let the lender split it up there's no clear place to stop and the limits are absurd. You could buy a movie, split it into frames and service 1000s of simultaneous viewings with small offsets from each-other.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Doesn't the article say that's not what they did, instead lending out copies that were sitting at partner libraries that weren't being lended out because they were closed? If that's the case, we're they not still lending out with each digital copy corresponding to a digital copy?

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

This time around, I'm going to wait until it is clear that I'm not just funding the publishers (in case a court awards a judgement that would bankrupt the IA). But once that is clear, definitely going to continue throwing money at IA (or whatever successor may form). They're an absolutely invaluable asset for all of humanity.