3 ms·

> I still don't get why people hate this so much. Because it was such an own-goal. They were obviously going to get sued for it, and they were probably going

> I still don't get why people hate this so much. Because it was such an own-goal. They were obviously going to get sued for it, and they were probably going to lose. Some people might not like that it, but it is the reality of the situation. How did they think it was going to end?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> They were obviously going to get sued for it, and they were probably going to lose. They didn't think they were going to lose. They're spending resources to appeal this right now, and it's not because they think it's completely hopeless. There is also some strategy in the provocation, because in order to establish a precedent that the original version of controlled digital lending is allowed, they'd have to get sued and win, but they'd been doing it for a while and nobody sued them. They had to push the envelope enough to get into court and it seems weird to get mad at them for dancing near the line when doing that is inherently necessary to establish a precedent. And your argument is essentially circular. They should lose because they'd probably lose? But why? Did any libraries stop buying books as a result, depriving publishers of revenue?
- favorited 3y ago
  > And your argument is essentially circular. They should lose because they'd probably lose? That's not what I said - I said they shouldn't have done what they did, because they will lose.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Which is implying that they should lose, but why should they lose?
    - noirscape 3y ago
      Because they violated the law? You're expecting the courts to write new laws from whole cloth here if you want IA to win. The courts don't do that, that's the job of Congress and the Senate. They can assemble multiple pieces of law (both actual law and prior case law) to create a new precedent (aka case law) but there's no prior case law or actual law that makes what IA did legal. That's why IA should lose according to the law (y'know, the terms being talked about, your own morals and views don't matter in the eyes of it), even if I think in a just world, IA should just've gotten a slap on the wrist and a warning to not do it again.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > You're expecting the courts to write new laws from whole cloth here if you want IA to win. They're arguing that it was fair use. Fair use is pretty clearly the law, it's 17 U.S. Code § 107. But the law sets up a balancing test with a bunch of factors, which makes it open to interpretation and means you have to make the case for your preferred interpretation to the court. Which you can only do after doing the thing and getting sued, because otherwise there is never a court opinion establishing the law one way or the other. Maybe that's absurd -- maybe you should be able to find out if something is illegal or not before you do it -- but now you're arguing that the law is absurd, not that the absurd mechanism isn't actually the law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
didntcheck 3y ago
Yep. As someone who had previously donated to them, I felt betrayed that they'd jeopardize their very important and virtually one-of-a-kind internet archive in order to pull a stupid stunt where they practically admitted that they were breaking the law. How am I supposed to trust them to responsibly manage their collections and money now? If you want to blatantly break copyright law to make a point, and hope that you'll somehow get off by asking the judge nicely, do it in some isolated org please. Not with the wallet of a major modern museum
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  Well said. I'm willing to overlook the copyright issues with the archive itself because it's so valuable to everyone. But when they're openly trying to destroy artists, writers and publishers I part ways.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> They were obviously going to get sued for it, and they were probably going to lose. They didn't think they were going to lose. They're spending resources to appeal this right now, and it's not because they think it's completely hopeless. There is also some strategy in the provocation, because in order to establish a precedent that the original version of controlled digital lending is allowed, they'd have to get sued and win, but they'd been doing it for a while and nobody sued them. They had to push the envelope enough to get into court and it seems weird to get mad at them for dancing near the line when doing that is inherently necessary to establish a precedent. And your argument is essentially circular. They should lose because they'd probably lose? But why? Did any libraries stop buying books as a result, depriving publishers of revenue?

favorited 3y ago
> And your argument is essentially circular. They should lose because they'd probably lose? That's not what I said - I said they shouldn't have done what they did, because they will lose.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Which is implying that they should lose, but why should they lose?
  - noirscape 3y ago
    Because they violated the law? You're expecting the courts to write new laws from whole cloth here if you want IA to win. The courts don't do that, that's the job of Congress and the Senate. They can assemble multiple pieces of law (both actual law and prior case law) to create a new precedent (aka case law) but there's no prior case law or actual law that makes what IA did legal. That's why IA should lose according to the law (y'know, the terms being talked about, your own morals and views don't matter in the eyes of it), even if I think in a just world, IA should just've gotten a slap on the wrist and a warning to not do it again.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > You're expecting the courts to write new laws from whole cloth here if you want IA to win. They're arguing that it was fair use. Fair use is pretty clearly the law, it's 17 U.S. Code § 107. But the law sets up a balancing test with a bunch of factors, which makes it open to interpretation and means you have to make the case for your preferred interpretation to the court. Which you can only do after doing the thing and getting sued, because otherwise there is never a court opinion establishing the law one way or the other. Maybe that's absurd -- maybe you should be able to find out if something is illegal or not before you do it -- but now you're arguing that the law is absurd, not that the absurd mechanism isn't actually the law.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

didntcheck 3y ago

Yep. As someone who had previously donated to them, I felt betrayed that they'd jeopardize their very important and virtually one-of-a-kind internet archive in order to pull a stupid stunt where they practically admitted that they were breaking the law. How am I supposed to trust them to responsibly manage their collections and money now? If you want to blatantly break copyright law to make a point, and hope that you'll somehow get off by asking the judge nicely, do it in some isolated org please. Not with the wallet of a major modern museum

xhkkffbf 3y ago
Well said. I'm willing to overlook the copyright issues with the archive itself because it's so valuable to everyone. But when they're openly trying to destroy artists, writers and publishers I part ways.