4 ms·

> 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

> 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.