2 ms·

> Which would make them less sympathetic You think them saying 'we understand that the web archive is a valuable resource of data which isn't under legal attac

> Which would make them less sympathetic You think them saying 'we understand that the web archive is a valuable resource of data which isn't under legal attack, and to best serve the needs of the public we'll ring-fence that resource by spinning it off as a separate legal entity that won't be affected by any legal action that may be taken against us while we fight a (more) contentious battle' would result in less sympathy for them? How so?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
You're proposing that they separate their more sympathetic more traditional activities into a separate entity than their more contentious activities, so that the latter entity is engaged in only the more contentious activities. Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose.
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  > Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Yes, but that entity is clearly violating the law and is archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible. This strategy is about preserving the more valuable non-alternatively-archived data. > Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose. They're clearly violating the law, they've lost already on a similar case, if they don't expect to lose they should fire their counsel.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible. How useful to the public is it to have it archived but not publicly accessible? > They're clearly violating the law, they've lost already on a similar case They're not clearly violating the law, they're doing something where the law isn't established (which is the point), and the other case is subject to appeal.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

You're proposing that they separate their more sympathetic more traditional activities into a separate entity than their more contentious activities, so that the latter entity is engaged in only the more contentious activities. Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose.

Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Yes, but that entity is clearly violating the law and is archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible. This strategy is about preserving the more valuable non-alternatively-archived data. > Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose. They're clearly violating the law, they've lost already on a similar case, if they don't expect to lose they should fire their counsel.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible. How useful to the public is it to have it archived but not publicly accessible? > They're clearly violating the law, they've lost already on a similar case They're not clearly violating the law, they're doing something where the law isn't established (which is the point), and the other case is subject to appeal.