3 ms·

It is impossible to make the Internet Archive understand copyright when their entire business model relies on not understanding it.

Phiwise_ 2y ago
Alternatively, could their business model be understanding it and naking the wrong choice anyway? They've been e-begging of this lengthy ordeal something fierce the whole time, and now that they've lost seem to have straightaway launched into setting the whole thing up again. Putting their archive materials in perpetual danger seems to generate perpetual sympathy after making themselves the far and away leader in their sector. Reminds of what a lot of other sites have been doing.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  Interesting perspective. I suppose it's possible they could be doing this on purpose just to get more attention/money... but I don't know if they're really that smart. If that were their real intentions, then I think people will call this no different than a typical for-profit tech corporation trying to artificially inflate their worth.
  - Phiwise_ 2y ago
    Sorry I wasn't trying to argue that they're raising money specifically to line their own pockets. Maybe they want to branch out to other nonprofit internet causes, maybe they've become convinced they need a rainy day fund for the long term of their operation, maybe they're using this case as a lead-in to fubd lobbying and activism, etc. I'm just confident that, whatever the reason is, they know what they're doing to get there. They're not ignorant about the law of the one subject they've been dealing with for decades, and my argument is it's scummy to take your donating users hostage like a for-profit might regardless of why you do it, because nonprofits are given numerous legs up on the risk of competition specifically on the argument they wouldn't behave like this. You could probably even dig up some statements from IA over the years to this effect; they've certainly associated officially with peiple who said so all the time. If the field were even they would at least be taxed on whatever they're collecting money for like for-profits are, and that money could pay for the court process of batting down their inevitable bunk. Instead, you and I have to fund it when we have the selfish gall to do things like work for our wages or exchange those wages for food, plus now we have to fuel the other side too if we want to save our crowdsourced abandonware repository from this hostage situation come partisan dirty war.
dannyobrien 2y ago
They're a non-profit. They don't have a business model.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  This is hopelessly naive. Nonprofits exist to collect more donations next year than last year.
  - dannyobrien 2y ago
    I get directionally what you're saying, but on the specifics of always pursuing growth, that isn't true. Ironically, one of the people that I've heard argue most forcefully for the idea of steady-state non-profit is actually Brewster Kahle, though it wasn't about IA. I remember him arguing that a particular goal may require a institution of a certain size, and if you started bringing in more cash, it might make more sense to spin off another, independent organization. (Now I must say, I've also seen that strategy pursued in practice among businesses, and let me tell you, it's a lot easier in the non-profit world!)
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    That is hopelessly cynical. Sometimes people actually are dedicated to the goals of the organization and not just personal gain. It also doesn't make any sense in this context. Soliciting donations only to spend them on lawyers doesn't yield any net money for the organization.

Phiwise_ 2y ago

Alternatively, could their business model be understanding it and naking the wrong choice anyway? They've been e-begging of this lengthy ordeal something fierce the whole time, and now that they've lost seem to have straightaway launched into setting the whole thing up again. Putting their archive materials in perpetual danger seems to generate perpetual sympathy after making themselves the far and away leader in their sector. Reminds of what a lot of other sites have been doing.

ranger_danger 2y ago
Interesting perspective. I suppose it's possible they could be doing this on purpose just to get more attention/money... but I don't know if they're really that smart. If that were their real intentions, then I think people will call this no different than a typical for-profit tech corporation trying to artificially inflate their worth.
- Phiwise_ 2y ago
  Sorry I wasn't trying to argue that they're raising money specifically to line their own pockets. Maybe they want to branch out to other nonprofit internet causes, maybe they've become convinced they need a rainy day fund for the long term of their operation, maybe they're using this case as a lead-in to fubd lobbying and activism, etc. I'm just confident that, whatever the reason is, they know what they're doing to get there. They're not ignorant about the law of the one subject they've been dealing with for decades, and my argument is it's scummy to take your donating users hostage like a for-profit might regardless of why you do it, because nonprofits are given numerous legs up on the risk of competition specifically on the argument they wouldn't behave like this. You could probably even dig up some statements from IA over the years to this effect; they've certainly associated officially with peiple who said so all the time. If the field were even they would at least be taxed on whatever they're collecting money for like for-profits are, and that money could pay for the court process of batting down their inevitable bunk. Instead, you and I have to fund it when we have the selfish gall to do things like work for our wages or exchange those wages for food, plus now we have to fuel the other side too if we want to save our crowdsourced abandonware repository from this hostage situation come partisan dirty war.

dannyobrien 2y ago

They're a non-profit. They don't have a business model.

tedunangst 2y ago
This is hopelessly naive. Nonprofits exist to collect more donations next year than last year.
- dannyobrien 2y ago
  I get directionally what you're saying, but on the specifics of always pursuing growth, that isn't true. Ironically, one of the people that I've heard argue most forcefully for the idea of steady-state non-profit is actually Brewster Kahle, though it wasn't about IA. I remember him arguing that a particular goal may require a institution of a certain size, and if you started bringing in more cash, it might make more sense to spin off another, independent organization. (Now I must say, I've also seen that strategy pursued in practice among businesses, and let me tell you, it's a lot easier in the non-profit world!)
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  That is hopelessly cynical. Sometimes people actually are dedicated to the goals of the organization and not just personal gain. It also doesn't make any sense in this context. Soliciting donations only to spend them on lawyers doesn't yield any net money for the organization.