4 ms·
If they spun it off separately they'd be handing a pretty big target for publishers to lean on during trial: "They *knew* what they were doing was wrong, they e
by Osmose 3y ago
If they spun it off separately they'd be handing a pretty big target for publishers to lean on during trial: "They *knew* what they were doing was wrong, they even tried to separate it from their non-profit to protect themselves from the consequences!"
Probably it's more that we just disagree on the relative importance of digital lending; I think that digital lending is one core part of the overall ability to access archived works, and thus is core to the Internet Archive's mission and function rather than a simple extension of it. That makes it worthy of putting their full weight behind it.
- toss1 3y ago>> they'd be handing a pretty big target for publishers to lean on during trial: "They knew what they were doing was wrong, they even tried to separate it from their non-profit to protect themselves from the consequences!" Maybe, if they did it foolishly and obviously. But it could easily be done so as to undermine the same argument, and even if not, the counter-argument is that "we did it that way because "we knew we would be swimming with a bunch of excessively litigious asshat corporations." Not hard to convince a jury of that. Moreover, as important as digital lending is, losing BOTH digital lending AND The Internet Archive will be a serious disaster with very long-lasting consequences. This latest decision just made ti more likely, and the current SCOTUS, which may well be where this ends up, is likely to produce that result. We need an archive copy of The Internet Archive (both the data set and the organization).