6 ms·
He is. But at the cost of the greater good. Most of us care mainly about the Wayback Machine and archiving webpages; not borrowing books still under copyright
by et-al 2y ago
He is. But at the cost of the greater good.
Most of us care mainly about the Wayback Machine and archiving webpages; not borrowing books still under copyright and fighting publishers.
- TZubiri 2y agoSpeak for yourself, the internet archive successfully increased its scope and made creative contributions to case law (although it lost at the appeals court)
- badlibrarian 2y agoInternet Archive certainly made creative arguments, all of which were soundly rejected under Summary Judgment. This had the opposite effect on the future we both want. Under discovery in the case, it turned out that Internet Archive didn't keep accurate records of what they loaned out either. Another example of sloppy engineering that directly impacts their core mission. The fate of the organization now rests on the outcome of other lawsuits. In one, Internet Archive argues that they are allowed to digitize and publish Frank Sinatra records because the pops and crackles on them makes it Fair Use. If they did all this cleanly under a different LLC, I'd sit back and enjoy the show. But they didn't.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- carapace 2y ago> the greater good (Hot Fuzz reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQzrR6nOkYg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQzrR6nOkYg )