4 ms·

Counterpoint: It wasn't like IA people woke up one day and decided to give publishers the middle finger because they felt like it. Trump had declared a nation

Counterpoint: It wasn't like IA people woke up one day and decided to give publishers the middle finger because they felt like it. Trump had declared a national emergency due to COVID-19, under the guise of which Biden later tried to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars of student loans because he felt like it. Libraries were shut down and inaccessible to a lot of people during pandemic lockdowns. The NEL involved loaning people DRM'd books, not giving them out without controls. NEL also offered an email address copyright holders could contact to remove their content from the NEL; granted, visibility into that process wasn't great, but if you're a publisher or make a living as a self-published author and you aren't keeping tabs on major book-related news, isn't that on you? IA's lending library is made up of scans. No casual reader wants to read scanned digital books. I don't know what overtures were made to the publishers who ended up suing in part over the NEL (the lawsuits were more over digital lending of format-shifted works not specific to the NEL), but IA didn't try to blindside publishers in general. They had extensive dialogue with university presses, documented here: https://blog.archive.org/2020/04/27/forging-a-cooperative-path-forward-university-presses-national-emergency-library/ https://blog.archive.org/2020/04/27/forging-a-cooperative-pa...

causality0 3y ago
if you're a publisher or make a living as a self-published author and you aren't keeping tabs on major book-related news, isn't that on you? Most people would think they don't have to worry about it because there are these things called laws that say you can't make unlimited copies of copyrighted material. Which is what the IA did, independent of the fact they didn't allow their users to also make unlimited copies. Don't get me wrong, I hate the very concept of intellectual property. But there are right and wrong people to engage in political activism through flagrant lawbreaking and the thirty year old forty million dollar nonprofit is the wrong frickin' person. Being morally justified doesn't make it not apocalyptically stupid and now the stupendously obvious result is happening and I don't even feel bad anymore.
- InSteady 3y ago
  It's ok. They did the right thing, and continue to do so even without your approval or sympathy. You can move on with your life, they will continue to fight the good fight as they always have.
  - causality0 3y ago
    If that was guaranteed I'd be more than happy. But it isn't, because their foolish actions have endangered the existence of the Archive. These first two lawsuits are just the beginning. There's blood in the water now.
    - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
      If they are going to continue this weird strategy of tanking lawsuits that any competent counsel would advise they're going to lose, they should split off the more-irreplaceable and more frequently used part of the archive (that is, the web archive) into a separate legal entity, so that attacks on one don't endanger the other. As you seem concerned about the existence of the archive being endangered I presume you agree.
      - causality0 3y ago
        Oh certainly, if IA wants to split off an independent entity for bulldog IP freedom advocacy I'll open my wallet right now. But putting all the legal and semi-legal content I care about at risk because you want to swing around a big freedom dick doesn't make you a hero; it makes you a jackass.
        Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
        The thought did cross my mind that being destroyed by lawsuits might actually be their objective...
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Nobody can make unlimited copies of anything. There isn't an unlimited amount of bandwidth or storage capacity or users. Did the finite number of copies they actually made at any given time even exceed the number of copies locked up in closed libraries everywhere?

causality0 3y ago

if you're a publisher or make a living as a self-published author and you aren't keeping tabs on major book-related news, isn't that on you? Most people would think they don't have to worry about it because there are these things called laws that say you can't make unlimited copies of copyrighted material. Which is what the IA did, independent of the fact they didn't allow their users to also make unlimited copies. Don't get me wrong, I hate the very concept of intellectual property. But there are right and wrong people to engage in political activism through flagrant lawbreaking and the thirty year old forty million dollar nonprofit is the wrong frickin' person. Being morally justified doesn't make it not apocalyptically stupid and now the stupendously obvious result is happening and I don't even feel bad anymore.

InSteady 3y ago
It's ok. They did the right thing, and continue to do so even without your approval or sympathy. You can move on with your life, they will continue to fight the good fight as they always have.
- causality0 3y ago
  If that was guaranteed I'd be more than happy. But it isn't, because their foolish actions have endangered the existence of the Archive. These first two lawsuits are just the beginning. There's blood in the water now.
  - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
    If they are going to continue this weird strategy of tanking lawsuits that any competent counsel would advise they're going to lose, they should split off the more-irreplaceable and more frequently used part of the archive (that is, the web archive) into a separate legal entity, so that attacks on one don't endanger the other. As you seem concerned about the existence of the archive being endangered I presume you agree.
    - causality0 3y ago
      Oh certainly, if IA wants to split off an independent entity for bulldog IP freedom advocacy I'll open my wallet right now. But putting all the legal and semi-legal content I care about at risk because you want to swing around a big freedom dick doesn't make you a hero; it makes you a jackass.
      - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
        The thought did cross my mind that being destroyed by lawsuits might actually be their objective...
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Nobody can make unlimited copies of anything. There isn't an unlimited amount of bandwidth or storage capacity or users. Did the finite number of copies they actually made at any given time even exceed the number of copies locked up in closed libraries everywhere?