The article concentrates on the briefs by RIAA, MPA, and U.S. politicians - the moneybags and perennial bad guys whom everyone loves to hate. It barely mentions

The article concentrates on the briefs by RIAA, MPA, and U.S. politicians - the moneybags and perennial bad guys whom everyone loves to hate. It barely mentions the brief by authors groups and other creative organizations, from the Author's Guild to the North American Nature Photography Association. From the summary: IA has created a vast unauthorized online database of literary works that anyone in the world can access for free, which differs from the most flagrantly illegal pirate websites only by reason of its residing in a U.S. not-for-profit. ... IA’s infringements have caused and will continue to cause significant harm to Amici’s members. Many members’ works are part of the “long tail” of older published works that earn much of their revenue from licensed electronic uses rather than sales of new copies. Because authors and many other creators today generally earn so little from their writing,3 they rely on income from the long tail, and even a seemingly minor reduction in such income will materially impact the authors, visual artists, photographers, and other creators who depend on the income for survival. Further, creators and their publishers will find it more challenging, if not impossible, to bring older titles back into print, whether in physical or electronic form, if they must compete with free Open Library-generated ebooks from IA. Finally, such free Open Library-generated ebooks will also create a direct market substitute for authorized lending by libraries outside the U.S., which lending – unlike Open Library – generates royalties for creators under the public lending right recognized by most other developed countries. Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988.223.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.609... Like many people on HN, I regularly use the wayback machine or other parts of the Internet Archive to track the history of websites or read out-of-copyright and public domain works. Sharing this information is important and should be continued. I also believe in the concept of "Fair Use" for sharing and discussing excerpts of more current works. But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. Brewster Kahle decided that an overly broad interpretation of the Internet Archive's mission trumped these rights and the laws of the United States. Even when it was asked to repeatedly stop, he continued. Far from this being a "crusade" against IA, it's the logical outcome of one man's seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being. The collateral damage to the many noble aspects of the Internet Archive is bad. I truly hope it survives.