3 ms·

I can't imagine any other mission-driven nonprofit entity with a real operating budget disregarding the law to such a degree that it threatens the very existenc

I can't imagine any other mission-driven nonprofit entity with a real operating budget disregarding the law to such a degree that it threatens the very existence of its operations, including important services that have nothing to do with the CDL case. The way that nonprofits usually respond to major lawsuits are board meetings and discussions with legal counsel to evaluate the relevant issues and come up with a plan of action that can reduce legal costs (including settlements) and mitigate risks to the organization's ongoing operations and status. Board members also have a fiduciary responsibility to the organization that may go against the wishes of the chair or CEO or founder. So I have to ask: Why is the IA board different? How come this crisis wasn't averted years ago when the first C&Ds were issued, and presumably, legal counsel gave input and the board deliberated a response? Is it a true independent board or a rubber stamp board? Or, are they idealists who hew to the founder's values despite the existential threat to the organization? Does anyone have insights to share? Or is there some other explanation, such as a plan B or an ace in the hole that will bring in funding or transfer of assets if and when the final appeals fail? I am truly worried for the wonderful public domain archives that could disappear.

myself248 3y ago
Do you remember the day after 9/11, when it felt like everything changed, the rules were being rewritten, and anything was on the table? I felt something similar during the height of the early pandemic and lockdown measures, and I suspect that IA's decision was made in the same spirit. It's hard to look back on it now because so much shitty and divisive stuff happened since, but there was a genuine feeling at the time: Anything is possible and everything must be done, to lessen the blow of lockdowns. Do what's morally right and hope the details get worked out later. Giving people books seemed morally right. I'm personally still confident in that, even if the laws of intellectual poverty say otherwise. We'll see what the courts say.
MyFedora 3y ago
Internet Archive's mission is to provide universal access to all knowledge. Short-term, they could fold, and provide less access to knowledge. But long-term, a legal precedent that helps not only the Internet Archive, but others to provide more access to knowledge is surely a preferable outcome for everyone involved. The publishers literally don't sell these books anymore. Come on.

myself248 3y ago

Do you remember the day after 9/11, when it felt like everything changed, the rules were being rewritten, and anything was on the table? I felt something similar during the height of the early pandemic and lockdown measures, and I suspect that IA's decision was made in the same spirit. It's hard to look back on it now because so much shitty and divisive stuff happened since, but there was a genuine feeling at the time: Anything is possible and everything must be done, to lessen the blow of lockdowns. Do what's morally right and hope the details get worked out later. Giving people books seemed morally right. I'm personally still confident in that, even if the laws of intellectual poverty say otherwise. We'll see what the courts say.

MyFedora 3y ago

Internet Archive's mission is to provide universal access to all knowledge. Short-term, they could fold, and provide less access to knowledge. But long-term, a legal precedent that helps not only the Internet Archive, but others to provide more access to knowledge is surely a preferable outcome for everyone involved. The publishers literally don't sell these books anymore. Come on.