2 ms·

> It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending Indeed. It's maybe worth reflec

> It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending Indeed. It's maybe worth reflecting on the apparent conflict there. What info are you missing, that could explain the conflict? The IA folks aren't crazy, but they are opinionated and willing to take action where others might not, and the world was in a very crazy state at the time the decision was made. Consider some sympathy for the people leading the project you feel so passionately about.

vineyardmike 3y ago
But they could issue a mea culpa, and move on. Admit defeat, pay a token fine or settlement, and keep their donations to preserve the rest of their archive. Why don't they cut out the rot, to preserve the rest of the archives. I know they had a mission, or some goal, or whatever, but it failed - it failed a long time ago. It can be right or wrong, i don't know. I want organizations to fight the battles that gain us new rights and freedoms. I know that they have a lot to lose here though, and they shouldn't risk it. Concretely, I was a big individual donor to the IA until this lawsuit. I support their mission, I love their work, I help (technically and financially) other organizations like local museums and non-profits handle their archival work. This is something important to me, and I really want their archives to persist. I stopped donating to the IA - and won't resume - until this lawsuit is resolved. I don't want to donate to the book publishers, and it looks that's going to be the outcome of their entire funds.